几个世纪以来，风中奇缘一直吸引着我们的想象力。她是一位伟大的印度酋长的女儿，后来成为一位英国船长的新娘，也是 17 世纪伦敦的话题，几代人通过诗歌、艺术和故事来纪念她。她和约翰·史密斯是我们国家起源故事的中心人物：她对史密斯的营救可能是 1607 年和 1608 年英国詹姆斯敦原始殖民地历史上最著名的部分。2006 年，也就是第 400 届战争的前一年在所谓的救援周年纪念日，有关波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯的新书摆满了书店。您可以选择为儿童或成人、学者或休闲读者编写的书籍。但即使在四个世纪之后，这些新书对要讲述的故事也没有达成一致。波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯之间究竟发生了什么？

Pocahontas has captured our imaginations for centuries. Daughter of a great Indian chief, eventual bride of an English captain, and the talk of 17th-century London, she has been memorialized through poetry, art, and storytelling by generations. She and John Smith are lodged at the center of our stories about our country’s origins: Her rescue of Smith may be the best-known part of the history of the original English Jamestown colony of 1607 and 1608. In 2006, a year before the 400th anniversary of the supposed rescue, new volumes about Pocahontas and John Smith filled the bookstores. You could choose from books written for children or adults, scholars, or leisurely readers. But even after 4 centuries, these new books did not agree on the story to be told. What really happened between Pocahontas and John Smith?

华特迪士尼公司负责我们许多学生最了解的版本。在 1995 年的电影中，我们了解到，身材苗条、自由奔放的 19 岁女孩波卡洪塔斯和英俊潇洒的殖民者约翰·史密斯坠入爱河，无视印第安人和殖民者之间不得接触的命令。 。在电影的戏剧性高潮中，波卡洪塔斯阻止了她的父亲兼部落首领波瓦坦将史密斯棍打致死。她的勇气和同情心导致双方放下武器，并开创了两种交战文化之间宽容的新时代。这是一个简洁的故事，充满了戏剧、浪漫和道德教训。但人们、社会及其历史很少如此整洁（更不用说如此有吸引力和音乐性了）。这次救援真的发生了吗？

The Walt Disney Company is responsible for the version that many of our students know best. In the 1995 movie, we learned that Pocahontas, a svelte, free-spirited 19-year-old, and John Smith, a dashing hunk of a colonist, fell in love, flouting orders that there should be no contact between the Indians and colonists. In the movie’s dramatic climax, Pocahontas prevented Powhatan, her father and chief of the tribe, from cudgeling Smith to death. Her act of courage and compassion led to both sides laying down arms, and ushered in a new era of tolerance between two warring cultures. It is a tidy story, complete with drama, romance, and a moral lesson. But people, societies, and their histories are rarely this tidy (let alone so attractive and musical). Did this rescue really happen?

史学争论

Historiographical Debate

阅读当代作品，你不会找到直接的答案。在记者大卫·普莱斯的书《詹姆斯敦的爱与恨：约翰·史密斯、波卡洪塔斯和新国家的心》中，你会发现正如书名所暗示的那样：史密斯和波卡洪塔斯的浪漫故事，她被年长的旅行者所吸引，并拯救了她。他免于死亡。¹普莱斯称此次救援（一章的标题）为“史密斯职业生涯中最著名且最具争议的旅程”，并声称证据表明救援确实发生过。²然后，他将对争议的讨论放在书的边缘，这样就不会分散读者对主要故事的注意力。历史学家卡米拉·汤森德的书《风中奇缘与波瓦坦困境》就在普莱斯发表一年后，明确指出救援并未发生。³两位作者都同意围绕波卡洪塔斯营救约翰·史密斯的故事存在争议，两人都使用相同的历史证据来论证自己的观点，但各自得出相反的结论。我们有一个历史问题：风中奇缘救了约翰·史密斯吗？

Read contemporary works and you will not find a straightforward answer. In journalist David Price’s book, Love and Hate in Jamestown: John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation, you will find what the title suggests: a romantic tale of Smith and Pocahontas where she is attracted to the older traveler and saves him from death.¹ Price calls the rescue (a title of one chapter) the “most famous and controversial journey of Smith’s career” and asserts that the evidence indicates the rescue did happen.² He then relegates a discussion of the controversy to the margins of his book so it doesn’t divert the reader from his main story. Historian Camilla Townsend’s book, Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma, published just a year after Price’s, unequivocally states that the rescue did not happen.³ Both authors agree that controversy surrounds the story of Pocahontas’s rescue of John Smith, both use the same historical evidence to make their case, but each comes to opposite conclusions. We have a historical problem: Did Pocahontas rescue John Smith?

救援的故事并不新鲜。几代美国人都是听着这句话长大的。那么我们如何知道它是否发生了呢？如果这个故事的真实性有争议，那么它是从哪里来的呢？

The story of the rescue is not new. Generations of Americans have grown up hearing it. So how do we know whether it happened? Where did the story come from if its authenticity is debatable?

答案来自约翰·史密斯本人。唯一留下书面记录的事件目击者是史密斯，但他对该事件的描述充满了不一致之处。第一篇写于 1608 年，据推测是在这一年发生了救援，但没有提及威胁或救援，并使用“友谊”和“善意”等词语来描述与波瓦坦的会面（参见来源 1.1；所有来源均位于每章末尾）。“他用善意的言辞和丰盛的杂粮热情地欢迎了我，向我保证了他的友谊，并保证我在四天内的自由。” ⁴另一方面，16 年后写的另一篇报道使用了“野蛮”和“可怕”等词语来描述与波瓦坦的会面，这就是我们第一次听到酋长的女儿波卡洪塔斯“她把自己的[头]放在他的头上，以拯救他免于死亡”（见来源1.2）。⁵全文如下：

The answer is, from John Smith himself. The only eyewitness to the supposed event who left a paper trail was Smith, but his accounts of the event are riddled with inconsistencies. The first, written in 1608, the year the rescue supposedly occurred, makes no mention of the threat or rescue, and uses words like “friendship” and “kindness” to describe meeting Powhatan (see Source 1.1; all Sources are located at the end of each chapter). “Hee kindly welcomed me with good wordes and great platters of sundrie Victuals, assuring mee his friendship, and my libertie within foure days.”⁴ On the other hand, another account, written 16 years afterward, uses words like “barbarous” and “fearful” to describe the meeting with Powhatan, and this is where we first hear the famous claim that the chief’s daughter, Pocahontas, “laid her owne [head] upon his to save him from death” (see Source 1.2).⁵ The entire passage reads:

为什么一个叙述中提到了救援，而另一个叙述中却没有提到？如果一名印度女孩营救他的真相曝光，史密斯是否害怕被斥责为不够男人？他是否只是想在第一个叙述中描述这片新土地和陌生的人民，而选择省略个人故事？在第二个叙述中，他是否利用波卡洪塔斯 1616 年以印度公主和约翰·罗尔夫的妻子身份前往伦敦后的名声，从而将自己塑造成她早年生活中的一个角色，而现在她已经死了，无法回应？（波卡洪塔斯于 1617 年在一艘返回弗吉尼亚的船上死于天花。）他的话是为了表明波卡洪塔斯是杰出的吗？⁶

Why is the rescue mentioned in one account and not the other? Was Smith scared of being berated as less of a man if the truth about an Indian girl rescuing him came to light? Was he merely trying to describe this new land and unfamiliar peoples in the first account, choosing to omit personal stories? And in the second account, was he capitalizing on Pocahontas’s fame following her 1616 voyage to London as Indian princess and wife of John Rolfe, thus casting himself as a character in her early life now that she was dead and unable to respond? (Pocahontas succumbed to smallpox aboard a ship taking her back to Virginia in 1617.) Were his words designed to represent Pocahontas as exceptional, a sympathetic and peaceful Indian who converted to Christianity and differed radically from the rest of the Powhatan peoples who had become fierce enemies of the British in the intervening years?⁶

历史学家如何看待史密斯的两个叙述之间的对比？第一个对约翰·史密斯的诚实进行攻击的历史学家是约翰·亚当斯总统的曾孙亨利·亚当斯。亨利·亚当斯声称，考虑到史密斯最初的沉默以及两个叙述之间语气和细节的不一致，没有一个有思想的人会相信这个营救故事（见来源 1.3）。⁷虽然亚当斯的论点有道理，但他撰写这篇评论的年份（1867 年）也很能说明问题。后来的历史学家读了亚当斯的私人信件，发现他的怀疑是出于政治动机：攻击弗吉尼亚最喜欢的儿子，一位在殖民早期残酷日子里对詹姆斯敦的生存负有责任的英雄，实际上是对这个在内战。这并不是最后一次利用救援故事来传达与事件本身无关的信息。

What do historians make of the contrast between Smith’s two accounts? The first historian to publish an attack on John Smith’s honesty was Henry Adams, great-grandson of President John Adams. Henry Adams claimed that no thinking person could believe the rescue story, given both Smith’s initial silence and the inconsistencies in tone and detail between the two accounts (see Source 1.3).⁷ While Adams’s argument is reasonable, the year that he penned this critique, 1867, is also telling. Later historians would read Adams’s personal letters and find his skepticism politically motivated: attacking Virginia’s favorite son, a hero responsible for Jamestown’s survival in the early, brutal days of colonization, was in effect a swipe at this state that had been on the wrong side in the Civil War. It would not be the last time that the rescue story was used to send a message that had little to do with the event itself.

尽管如此，亚当斯还是暴露了这个历史问题，后来的历史学家继续试图解决这个问题。历史学家保罗·刘易斯（Paul Lewis）在《大盗贼：约翰·史密斯传记》中同意亚当斯关于救援可能性不大的观点（见资料来源 1.5）。⁸他询问了有关证实消息来源的问题，并对史密斯提出质疑，称史密斯的各个账户中存在修饰和不一致的情况。刘易斯指出，史密斯的救援故事首次出现时，正值波卡洪塔斯成为伦敦公报的宠儿并受到皇室关注。

Nevertheless, Adams surfaced the historical problem and later historians would continue to try to solve it. Historian Paul Lewis, in The Great Rogue: A Biography of John Smith, agreed with Adams about the improbability of a rescue (see Source 1.5).⁸ He asked questions about corroborating sources and challenged Smith on what he claimed were embellishments and inconsistencies within his separate accounts. Lewis pointed out that Smith’s rescue story first appeared just as Pocahontas was becoming the darling of the London Gazette and basking in royal attention.

其他历史学家相信史密斯的话，但即使承认这一事件可能发生过，他们也声称史密斯没有抓住要点。学者 JA Leo Lemay 在《约翰·史密斯船长的美国梦》中认为史密斯是一位值得信赖的作家，他出于不同的目的写了不同的叙述：第一个叙述中描述了新土地，第二个叙述中促进了对它的殖民化（见来源1.4） 。⁹勒梅还提供了另一项主要证据来证明自己的观点：史密斯 1616 年写给安妮女王的一封信，描述了此次救援行动。勒梅声称，毫无疑问该事件发生了，但史密斯误解了其含义：与其说这是一次营救，不如说这是一场精心设计的当地仪式。历史学家菲利普·巴伯（Philip Barbour）对此表示同意，声称该事件实际上是美洲原住民的仪式，旨在象征死亡和重生，象征着史密斯在波瓦坦的赞助下承担了新的部落身份（见来源1.6 ）。¹⁰显然发生了一些事情，但其重要性却被中心演员误解了。

Other historians took Smith at his word but, even while accepting that this event may have happened, claimed that Smith missed the point. Scholar J. A. Leo Lemay in The American Dream of Captain John Smith argued that Smith was a trustworthy author who wrote different accounts for different purposes: to describe the new land in the first account, to promote colonization of it in the second (see Source 1.4).⁹ Lemay included another piece of primary evidence to make his case: a letter Smith wrote to Queen Anne in 1616 describing the rescue. Lemay claimed that there was no doubt that the event happened, but that Smith misunderstood its meaning: It was less a rescue than an elaborate native ritual. Historian Philip Barbour agreed, claiming that the event was actually a Native American rite meant to signify death and rebirth, symbolizing Smith’s assumption of a new tribal identity under Powhatan’s patronage (see Source 1.6).¹⁰ Something obviously happened, but its import was misunderstood by the actor at its center.

盘点一下，这个故事的事实到底是什么？这些事实意味着什么？虽然这些问题没有简单的答案，但提出这些问题使我们成为“像历史学家一样阅读”方法的核心。

To take stock, what exactly are the facts of the story? What do these facts mean? While there are no easy answers to these questions, asking them puts us at the heart of the Reading Like a Historian approach.

风中奇缘和约翰·史密斯是美国神话中的人物。一位冒险家所写的 400 年前的叙述中的一个段落，被一位当代人称为“野心勃勃、不值得、虚荣” ^11，催生了一个美国人乐此不疲的故事。我们关于美国最受欢迎的印第安公主波卡洪塔斯的故事通常以史密斯的获救开始，这一事件显示了她在面对邪恶行为时的勇敢和独立。事实上，我们对这些历史人物和救援故事的再现本身已经成为合法的研究对象，因为它们反映了它们被创造的历史时间和地点。¹²

Pocahontas and John Smith are the stuff of American myth. A single paragraph in a 400-year-old account written by an adventurer whom one contemporary called “ambityous unworthy and vaynglorious”¹¹ spawned a story of which Americans never tire. Our story of Pocahontas, America’s favorite Indian princess, usually starts with Smith’s rescue, an event that shows her bravery and independence when faced with an evil deed. In fact, the representations we have of these historical figures and of the rescue story have become legitimate objects of study themselves, as they reflect the historical time and place in which they were created.¹²

亨利·亚当斯和迪士尼公司并不是唯一以自己的利益来叙述这个故事的作者。想想约翰·查普曼 (John Chapman) 的画作《弗吉尼亚州詹姆斯敦的风中奇缘的洗礼》(Baptism of Pocahontas at Jamestown, Virginia)， 1840 年挂在国会大厦圆形大厅，比记者约翰·奥沙利文 (John O'Sullivan) 创造“昭昭命运”一词早几年，而向西征服的势头正在增强。这幅画颂扬了波卡洪塔斯皈依基督教，暗示将基督教带给印第安人是一项现实而崇高的努力（即使，正如画中所描绘的，一些粗暴、坏的印第安人拒绝了它）。更轻率地考虑一下亚马逊网站上出售的由钻石和珍珠制成的带有波卡洪塔斯名字的昂贵珠宝。

Henry Adams and the Disney Company are not the only authors to narrate this story to their advantage. Consider John Chapman’s painting, Baptism of Pocahontas at Jamestown, Virginia, hung in the Capitol Rotunda in 1840 a few years before journalist John O’Sullivan coined the term “manifest destiny,” and the work of westward conquest was gaining steam. The painting glorifies Pocahontas’s conversion to Christianity, suggesting that bringing Christianity to the Indians is a realistic and noble endeavor (even if, as depicted in the painting, some surly, bad Indians rejected it). Consider, on a more frivolous note, the costly jewelry made of diamonds and pearls that bears Pocahontas’s name available at Amazon.com.

风中奇缘和救援故事的神话化对于理解和捕捉真实发生的事情意味着什么？人类学家海伦·朗特里和历史学家卡米拉·汤森等学者认为，它模糊并缩小了我们对过去的视野。¹³焦点集中在浪漫的印度公主和英国船长的吸引人的画面上，掩盖了英国人/波瓦坦人的遭遇以及随着殖民者开始将切萨皮克岛作为永久家园而各群体之间不断变化的关系的更大故事。风中奇缘的故事被简化为 CliffsNotes 形式的童话故事，导致学生们错过了了解有关这次遭遇和参与其中的人们的重要知识的机会。

And what has the mythologizing of Pocahontas and the rescue story meant for understanding and capturing what really happened? Scholars like anthropologist Helen Rountree and historian Camilla Townsend argue that it has obscured and narrowed our vision of this past.¹³ Focusing on an appealing picture of a romantic Indian princess and British captain has blotted out larger stories of British/Powhatan encounters and the groups’ evolving relationship as the colonists began to make the Chesapeake their permanent home. Pocahontas’s story, reduced to a fairytale, CliffsNotes form, leads students to miss out on learning significant things about this encounter and the peoples involved in it.

事实上，我们无法了解波卡洪塔斯的话语，因此我们对整个故事保持着震耳欲聋的沉默。事实上，我们所有的书面资料都是由英国人撰写的，我们无法获得波卡洪塔斯人民未经中介的声音。虽然史密斯、威廉·斯特雷奇和其他人对切萨皮克印第安人留下了冗长的描述，但他们的描述必然经过作者的文化和个人棱镜的过滤。历史学家必须仔细阅读这些书面证据。汤森告诉她的读者，她通过阅读史密斯的叙述并“将每一个陈述放在其撰写的背景中，并将其与确认或谴责的外部证据并列”来挑选出该事件的细节——本质上是历史学家最擅长的事情，¹⁴汤森对“英国人所知道的”的明确处理坚定地表明，我们需要知道史密斯的同时代人和同胞如何看待和描绘印第安人和殖民化，才能理解这一事件和史密斯的竞争对手的叙述。

The fact that we do not have access to Pocahontas’s words leaves us with a deafening silence about the complete story. In fact, all our written sources were composed by British men, and we have no access to the unmediated voices of Pocahontas’s people. While Smith, William Strachey, and others left lengthy descriptions of the Indians of the Chesapeake, their accounts are necessarily filtered through the authors’ cultural and personal prisms. Historians must read this written evidence closely. Townsend tells her readers that she culled the specifics of the event from reading Smith’s accounts and “placing each statement in the context in which it was written and juxtaposing it against confirming or damning external evidence”—essentially doing what historians do best, contextualizing and corroborating text to understand what it tells us about the past.¹⁴ Townsend’s explicit treatment of “what the English knew” firmly establishes that we need to know how Smith’s contemporaries and compatriots viewed and portrayed Indians and colonization to understand this event and Smith’s rival accounts.

同样，了解切萨皮克印第安人的社会——他们的日常生活、仪式和住所——有助于了解这一事件及其发生的背景。考古学家和人类学家帮助建立了这方面的知识。为了记录波瓦坦酋长管辖地的范围和发展以及不同印第安部落和村庄之间的关系，E. 伦道夫·特纳 (E. Randolph Turner) 查阅了考古和地理数据来补充英国的记载。¹⁵他和其他人分析了出土陶瓷及其位置之间的差异和一致性，以及幸存的贸易商品（如铜和贝壳文物）。印第安人定居点周围防御悬崖的证据有助于我们了解切萨皮克部落如何相处。这些学者利用他们掌握的证据来重建印度对这次遭遇的可能看法。

Similarly, knowing about the Chesapeake Indians’ societies—their routines, rituals, and residences—sheds light on this event and the context in which it occurred. Archeologists and anthropologists have helped in building this knowledge. To document the scope and growth of Powhatan’s chiefdom and relations between different Indian tribes and villages, E. Randolph Turner looked to archeological and geographical data to complement the English accounts.¹⁵ He and others analyzed variations and consistencies between unearthed ceramics and their locations, as well as surviving trade goods like copper and sea shell artifacts. Evidence of defensive cliffs surrounding Indian settlements contributes to what we know about how the tribes of the Chesapeake got along. These scholars use the evidence available to them to reconstruct possible Indian perspectives on the encounter.

这在多大程度上弥补了那些卷入这些早期殖民努力的人民的沉默？目前还不清楚，但对约翰·史密斯/波卡洪塔斯相遇的世界的更完整的了解肯定有助于理解什么是可能的，什么是不可能的。与此同时，新的信息正在被发现。2003年，在弗吉尼亚州格洛斯特县发现了一个地点，确定为Werowocomoco，即救援发生的村庄。考古学家兴奋地发现了比英国人早 150 多年的沟渠，这一发现表明村庄内的世俗空间和神圣空间是分开的。更薄、更脆弱的陶器碎片区分了神圣的空间；学者们推测这可能是波瓦坦的住所。¹⁶考古学家继续挖掘该遗址，寻找更多线索来了解这个没有留下书面记录的人。

How much does this compensate for the silence of the peoples most embroiled in these early colonization efforts? It’s not clear, but surely a more complete picture of the world of the John Smith/Pocahontas encounter contributes to understanding what is and isn’t likely. Meanwhile, new information is being uncovered. In 2003, a site determined to be Werowocomoco, the village where the rescue would have happened, was discovered in Gloucester County, Virginia. Archeologists thrilled in discovering ditches predating the English by more than 150 years, a find that suggested a separation of secular and sacred spaces within the village. Thinner, more fragile pottery shards distinguish the sacred space; scholars have speculated that it may have been Powhatan’s living quarters.¹⁶ Archeologists continue to excavate that site for more clues to understanding this people who left no written record.

首先，学者们表明，波瓦坦人并不是一个孤立的或孤独的部落，而是切萨皮克地区广泛的部落间网络的一部分。由于拥有共同的语言和生活方式，波瓦坦酋长是被称为阿尔冈金人的印第安群体的一部分，领导着一个类似于部落联盟的组织。该联盟在弗吉尼亚州潮水地区扩展了 6,000 多平方英里，并在他的领导下发展到了 30 多个部落和 12,000 人。这些部落中的每一个都向波瓦坦进贡，并拥有一位忠于联邦和波瓦坦的酋长或部落酋长。部落可能通过战争、联盟和部落间通婚加入联邦。

First, scholars have shown that the Powhatan were not an isolated or loner tribe, but part of an extensive intertribal network on the Chesapeake. Part of the Indian group called the Algonquian by virtue of a shared language and way of life, Chief Powhatan led something akin to a tribal federation. The federation extended more than 6,000 square miles in the Tidewater area of Virginia and grew to more than 30 tribes and 12,000 people under his leadership. Each of these tribes paid tribute to Powhatan and had a chief, or werowance, loyal to the federation and Powhatan. Tribes probably joined the federation through war, alliances, and intertribal marriage.

此外，当英国人到达詹姆斯敦时，波卡洪塔斯的父亲对外交或群体间关系世界并不陌生：他已经是不同群体的强大领导者。汤森德称他为“一位杰出的战略家” ¹⁷，而巴伯则用“专制主义”一词来形容他的治理。¹⁸英国人拥有外国但有用的工具、大船和奇怪的方式，对波瓦坦来说也不陌生。西班牙人已经到达该地区并与印第安人发生小规模冲突：这并不是欧洲人第一次到达他们中间。

Further, Pocahontas’s father was not new to the world of diplomacy or intergroup relations when the English arrived in Jamestown: He was already a powerful leader of diverse groups. Skilled and successful at diplomacy in his world, Townsend calls him “a brilliant strategist”¹⁷ while Barbour uses the word “despotism” to describe his governance.¹⁸ Nor were the British, with their foreign but useful tools, their big ships and strange ways, new to Powhatan. The Spanish had already been to the region and skirmished with the Indians: This was not the first time Europeans had arrived in their midst.

英国殖民者知道西班牙早期的努力，这影响了他们的计划和方法。当苏珊康斯坦号、发现号和神速号抵达时，乘客们计划殖民该地区，事实上，他们知道该地区是一个他们希望填补的权力真空。但英国人并不同意当地人的这种观点，他们在建立一个富有成效和自给自足的定居点方面的无能和麻烦可能有助于他们作为临时访客的掩盖故事。然而，这也导致了现在臭名昭著的“饥饿时代”，在定居点的第一个冬天，约翰·史密斯船长开始向上游航行，用工具和珠子换取玉米，以拯救他的同胞。饥饿。在沿奇卡霍米尼河逆流而上最远的旅程中，他被波瓦坦的兄弟奥佩坎卡诺 (Opechancanough) 抓获，并被从一个村庄带到另一个村庄。12 月下旬，史密斯被带到距离詹姆斯敦 12 英里的 Werowocomoco 的 Powhatan 面前。这里是救援故事的发生地，也是风中奇缘故事的开始地。

The British colonizers knew of the earlier Spanish efforts, and this influenced their plans and approach. When the Susan Constant, Discovery, and Godspeed arrived, the passengers had designs on colonizing the area, and in fact knew the region as a power vacuum that they hoped to fill. But the British didn’t share this view with the natives, and their ineptness and trouble with creating a productive and self-sustaining settlement may have helped their cover story of being temporary visitors. However, it also led to what is now infamously known as “the starving times,” and in the first winter of the settlement, Captain John Smith started making voyages upriver to trade tools and beads for corn to save his compatriots from starvation. In his furthest trip up the Chickahominy River, he was captured by Opechancanough, Powhatan’s brother, and taken from village to village. In late December Smith was brought before Powhatan at Werowocomoco, 12 miles from Jamestown. This is the site of the rescue story and where the story of Pocahontas begins.

考虑到她作为具有多种用途的偶像的地位，令人惊讶的是我们实际上对风中奇缘的可证实的了解是多么的少。波瓦坦的女儿和一位不知名的母亲大约在 9 岁或 10 岁的时候，她第一次在村子里看到了被俘的约翰·史密斯，也就是所谓的救援发生的时候。第二年，波卡洪塔斯成为詹姆斯敦的常客。她带来了和解条款，并被史密斯认为负责安全返回一些印第安人质。她为殖民者和印第安人翻译，汤森推测她可能对史密斯记录的唯一幸存的阿尔冈昆语完整句子负责。虽然她来访的确切性质尚不清楚，但他们似乎很友好且乐于助人。然而，在过年之前，

Given her status as icon serving multiple purposes, it is striking how little verifiable knowledge about Pocahontas we actually have. The daughter of Powhatan and an unknown mother was about 9 or 10 years old when she would have first seen the captive John Smith in her village—and when the supposed rescue happened. In the following year, Pocahontas was a frequent visitor to Jamestown. She brought the settlement provisions and was credited by Smith with being responsible for the safe return of some Indian hostages. She translated for the colonists and Indians, and Townsend conjectures that she may be responsible for the sole surviving Algonquian complete sentence recorded by Smith. While the exact nature of her visits is unknown, they seem to be friendly and helpful. However, before the year was up, she stopped visiting the colony and there is a single report that she married an Indian named Kocoom.

直到 1613 年她被一位有进取心的英国人塞缪尔·阿加尔船长绑架后，她才再次出现在英国的记载中。在此期间，史密斯带着火药伤返回英国，印第安人和殖民者之间的敌对行动加剧。听说波瓦坦的女儿就在他的船附近，阿戈尔抓住机会利用这位印度公主为英国谋取利益。联邦部落的一名成员帕托沃梅克帮助引诱波卡洪塔斯登上阿加尔的船，她被抓获并勒索赎金。三个月来，波瓦坦没有回应赎金要求，后来部分满足了要求。获释后，波卡洪塔斯在不确定的条件下留在了詹姆斯敦，并在一年之内皈依了基督教，并遇到了约翰·罗尔夫并与之结婚。1615 年，两人生下了儿子托马斯·罗尔夫 (Thomas Rolfe)，次年，他们启航前往英国。在那里，波卡洪塔斯被视为印度公主，受到詹姆斯一世国王和安妮女王的宫廷接待。西蒙·范德帕斯也在此时制作了她唯一现存的肖像，这幅版画现在悬挂在史密森尼博物馆中。1617 年春天，波卡洪塔斯的家人启航返回弗吉尼亚，但在他们离开英格兰之前，她就病倒了。她当时应该是19岁或20岁。

She did not appear again in British accounts until she was kidnapped in 1613 by an enterprising Englishman, Captain Samuel Argall. In the intervening years, Smith had returned to England with a gunpowder injury, and hostilities between the Indians and the colonists had accelerated. Hearing that Powhatan’s daughter was near his ship, Argall seized the opportunity to use the Indian princess to British advantage. A member of a federation tribe, Patowomeck, helped lure Pocahontas aboard Argall’s ship, where she was captured and held for ransom. For 3 months, Powhatan didn’t respond to the ransom demands and then partially met them. Upon her release, Pocahontas stayed in Jamestown, under uncertain conditions, and within a year had converted to Christianity and met and married John Rolfe. In 1615, the two had a son, Thomas Rolfe, and the following year, they set sail for England. There, Pocahontas was regarded as an Indian princess and received at the court of King James I and Queen Anne. This is also when Simon Van de Passe produced the only existing portrait of her, an engraving that now hangs in the Smithsonian. Pocahontas’s family set sail for their return to Virginia in the spring of 1617, but she fell ill and died before they cleared England. She would have been 19 or 20 years old.

风中奇缘是当今美国人心目中浪漫且受欢迎的历史人物，这次救援塑造了我们对她的看法。然而，我们所知道的关于这次救援的常见故事可能更多是神话而不是历史。历史学家和学者们在追求准确讲述这个故事的同时，仍在争论神话之外的真相。近几十年来，人们对理解和融入与该活动相关的印度观点和文化现实给予了新的关注。巴伯、勒梅、朗特里和汤森——所有这些学者都对此很关注，但即便如此，他们对这一事件的解释也有所不同。问题依然存在。是否有证据让我们相信波瓦坦的部落进行了巴伯建议的那种重生仪式？如果我们专注于救援 我们是否错过了风中奇缘的真正历史意义——作为一名文化经纪人，他与英国人的互动以及最终与罗尔夫的婚姻更多地是外交而不是感情？鉴于她在当时的事件中只是一个次要角色，我们对她的关注是否被误导和夸大了？在英国殖民切萨皮克地区的美国故事中，营救故事如何让其他故事黯然失色？至此，我们讲述的关于波卡洪塔斯和救援的故事已经有了自己的生命，与任何历史证据无关。海伦·朗特里（Helen Rountree）对波卡洪塔斯（Pocahontas）所教给我们的内容又添加了另一个转折。鉴于她在当时的事件中只是一个小角色？在英国殖民切萨皮克地区的美国故事中，营救故事如何让其他故事黯然失色？至此，我们讲述的关于波卡洪塔斯和救援的故事已经有了自己的生命，与任何历史证据无关。海伦·朗特里（Helen Rountree）对波卡洪塔斯（Pocahontas）所教给我们的内容又添加了另一个转折。鉴于她在当时的事件中只是一个小角色？在英国殖民切萨皮克地区的美国故事中，营救故事如何让其他故事黯然失色？至此，我们讲述的关于波卡洪塔斯和救援的故事已经有了自己的生命，与任何历史证据无关。海伦·朗特里（Helen Rountree）对波卡洪塔斯（Pocahontas）所教给我们的内容又添加了另一个转折。

Pocahontas is a romantic and popular historical figure for Americans today, and the rescue is what frames our perception of her. However, the common story that we know about this rescue may be more myth than history. Historians and scholars still debate the truth beyond the myth while pursuing an accurate telling of the story. In recent decades, new attention has been paid to understanding and incorporating Indian perspectives and cultural realities relevant to the event. Barbour, Lemay, Rountree, and Townsend—all of these scholars are attentive to this, but even so, they differ in their interpretations of the event. Questions persist. Is there evidence to convince us that Powhatan’s tribe engaged in the kinds of ritual rebirths suggested by Barbour? And if we focus on the rescue, do we miss out on the true historical significance of Pocahontas—as a cultural broker whose interactions with the British, and eventual marriage to Rolfe, were more about diplomacy than affection? Is our focus on her misguided and overblown, given that she was a minor character in the events of the time? How did the rescue story eclipse all else in the American story of the British colonization of the Chesapeake region? At this point, the stories that we tell about Pocahontas and the rescue have taken on a life of their own, separate from any historical evidence. Helen Rountree adds still another twist on what Pocahontas teaches us.

有关波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯的文献和学术成果广泛而生动。从巴伯引人注目的故事和勒梅仔细而有说服力的分析，到朗特里的民族历史方法和蒂尔顿对神话制作的详细讲述，这个故事背后的真相值得调查。更重要的是，约翰·史密斯的“营救”故事暴露了历史的弱点，并向我们表明，许多美国人所认为的事实实际上依赖于单一的（有些可疑的）来源。当我们将此来源与同一作者的其他文档进行比较时，问题就会成倍增加。真正的历史就是提出问题，这使得波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯的故事成为引导我们的学生进入历史探测艺术的理想选择。

The literature and scholarship concerning Pocahontas and John Smith are extensive and lively. From Barbour’s compelling story and Lemay’s careful and persuasive analysis to Rountree’s ethnohistorical approach and Tilton’s detailed telling of the making of a myth, the truth behind this story is worth investigating. More important, the story of John Smith’s “rescue” lays bare history’s weak points and shows us that what so many Americans have taken as fact relies, in fact, on a single (somewhat dubious) source. And when we compare this source to other documents from the same author, questions multiply. Genuine history is about asking questions, which makes the Pocahontas/John Smith story the ideal candidate for initiating our students into the art of historical detection.

为什么要讲授约翰·史密斯和风中奇缘？

Why Teach About John Smith and Pocahontas?

一个可管理的历史问题来开始你的课程。风中奇缘/约翰·史密斯的救援故事是开始历史思维教学的一种引人注目的方式。尽管对这一事件的解释工作并不缺乏，但实际的文献记录却出奇地少。从本质上讲，这意味着在几个课时中，您的学生可以遇到引发这场辩论的主要来源。通过阅读约翰史密斯的两种相互矛盾的叙述，学生们立即被推入争论的中心，面临着一个不容易解决的历史问题。在评估了这一事件背后的主要文件后，学生们可以回到教科书的叙述中，并以新的眼光来看待它：“当他们甚至不清楚这件事是否发生时，他们怎么能写出如此确定的东西？！”

A Manageable Historical Problem to Start Your Course. The Pocahontas/John Smith rescue story is a compelling way to start teaching for historical thinking. While there is no shortage of interpretive work that has been done on the event, the actual documentary record is surprisingly thin. Essentially what this means is that over a few class periods, your students can encounter the main sources that fuel this debate. By reading John Smith’s two conflicting accounts, students are immediately thrust into the center of the controversy and confronted with a historical problem that is not easily solved. Having evaluated the primary documents behind this event, students can return to their textbook’s narrative and look at it through new eyes: “How can they write something with such certainty when it’s not even clear that it happened?!”

将历史呈现为一系列有待探索的问题，而不是一组需要记忆的故事，对您的学生来说可能是一种新的体验。约翰·史密斯/风中奇缘问题的早期殖民背景意味着，从课程一开始，学生就可以将历史视为与他们许多人期望的不同的事业。识别并解决一个历史问题，包括指导性问题、多种多样且相互矛盾的来源，并且没有单一的正确答案挑战了学生的观点，即历史是静态的，其中唯一涉及的思考是弄清楚如何记住如此多的材料。虽然波卡洪塔斯是否真的拯救了约翰·史密斯这个狭隘的问题在课程背景下似乎是可以忽略的，但这个问题的有限范围提供了许多教学优势。学生体验历史调查的关键方面，并有丰富的历史思考机会，但他们不会被历史记录淹没。复杂的问题对于新手来说更容易掌握，不需要几十篇文档。

History presented as a series of problems to be explored, rather than a set of stories to be committed to memory, may be a new experience for your students. The early colonial setting of the John Smith/Pocahontas problem means that from the beginning of your course, students can encounter history as a different enterprise than what many of them expect. Identifying and working through a historical problem, complete with guiding questions, varied and contradictory sources, and no single right answer challenges students’ ideas that history is static, where the only thinking involved is figuring out how so much material can be memorized. While the narrow question of whether Pocahontas actually rescued John Smith may seem expendable given the curricular terrain, the question’s limited scope offers many instructional advantages. Students experience key facets of historical investigation with rich opportunities to think historically, but they are not overwhelmed by the historical record. Complex questions are easier for novices to grasp without dozens of documents.

主要来源总是“主要”吗？事实上，调查波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯的故事为培养学生的历史理解提供了多种途径。史密斯故事中的对比挑战了学生对第一手或主要叙述的看法，也就是说，它们始终是理解过去的最可靠来源。学生们常常将第一手资料视为历史真相的反映，而没有意识到有必要审问它们。但在这里，主要来源相互矛盾，这些矛盾不能通过吸引不同观点的不同作家来解决。为什么同一来源约翰史密斯，说不同的话？使用二手历史解释让学生了解更多的复杂性，并挑战了简单化的观念，即第一手资料教给我们的东西比现代历史学家的解释更多。过去几个世纪的学术研究为史密斯的说法提供了另一种解释，即这一事件对波瓦坦人可能意味着什么，遗憾的是，波瓦坦人没有留下自己的书面记录。

Are Primary Sources Always “Primary”? Indeed, investigating the Pocahontas/John Smith story offers multiple avenues to developing students’ historical understanding. The contrast in Smith’s stories challenges students’ ideas about first-hand or primary accounts—that is, that they are always the most reliable source for understanding the past. Often students privilege primary sources as reflections of historical truth and don’t recognize the need to interrogate them. But here, the primary sources contradict one another, and these contradictions cannot be resolved by appealing to different writers with different perspectives. Why does the same source, John Smith, say different things? Working with the secondary historical interpretations introduces students to more complexity and challenges the simplistic notion that primary sources teach us more than the interpretations of modern-day historians. Scholarship done over the past few centuries provides alternative explanations to Smith’s for what this event may have meant to the Powhatan, who, alas, left no written records of their own.

从已知开始。最后，话题的熟悉度是另一大优势。很少有学生没有听说过波卡洪塔斯，或者无法背诵约翰·史密斯/波卡洪塔斯故事的某些版本。这种熟悉意味着学生可能会对这个话题和问题感兴趣，并对历史学家仍在争论这个事实感到惊讶。当他们讨论学生已经知道的主题时，使用相互矛盾的来源会更容易。一旦学生们意识到他们所听到的故事可能更多的是神话而不是历史，关于我们如何了解过去的问题就具有了新的意义。历史不再是令人麻木的事实清单，而是邀请人们加入关于证据和论证的激烈辩论。

Starting with the Known. Finally, the topic’s familiarity is another big advantage. It is the rare student who hasn’t heard of Pocahontas or who cannot recite some version of the John Smith/Pocahontas story. This familiarity means that students are likely to be interested in the topic and problem, and be surprised by the fact that historians are still arguing about it. It is easier to work with contradictory sources when they take up a topic that students already know. Once students realize that the story they’ve been told may be more myth than history, questions about how we know the past take on new meaning. Instead of a numbing list of facts, history becomes an invitation to join a raucous debate about evidence and argument.

您将如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

场景 1（1-2 小时课程）。波卡洪塔斯救了约翰·史密斯吗？使用这些资源和工具让学生阅读和分析多个账户，以就救援的可能性提出基于证据的论证。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). Did Pocahontas rescue John Smith? Use these sources and tools to engage students in reading and analyzing multiple accounts to create an evidence-based argument about the likelihood of the rescue.

首先询问学生他们对风中奇缘和约翰·史密斯了解多少。找出学生对这些人及其时间的了解，以及他们从哪里学到的。有些人会引用 1995 年迪士尼的《风中奇缘》电影。播放迪士尼版本的救援（DVD 第 25 章，或电影大约 1 分 09 秒）。使用时间线（工具 1.1; 所有工具都位于章节末尾）以及您在美洲探索和殖民方面所做的任何工作，以简要建立所指控事件的相关背景，然后介绍本课的指导性问题：波卡洪塔斯是否拯救了约翰·史密斯？在接下来的几轮中，让两对学生使用文档集和随附的工作表来帮助他们回答这个问题。每轮文件结束后，引导全班讨论。在这次讨论中，重新审视指导性问题，并提示学生用文件中的证据来捍卫他们的答案。聆听学生提出的问题，以强调历史挖掘通常会带来更多问题。

Start off by asking students what they know about Pocahontas and John Smith. Elicit what students know about these individuals and their time, and where they learned it. Some will cite the 1995 Disney Pocahontas film. Show the Disney version of the rescue (Chapter 25 of the DVD, or approximately 1:09 into the movie). Use the timeline (Tool 1.1; all Tools are located at the end of chapters) along with any work you have done on the exploration and colonization of the Americas to briefly establish relevant background to the alleged event, then introduce the lesson’s guiding question: Did Pocahontas rescue John Smith? In successive rounds, have pairs of students work with document sets and accompanying worksheets to help them answer this question. After each round of documents, lead a whole-class discussion. In this discussion, revisit the guiding question and prompt students to defend their answers with evidence from the documents. Listen for questions that students have generated to highlight how historical digging often leads to more questions.

在第一轮中，学生使用史密斯的帐户和随附工具（来源 1.1和1.2，工具 1.2）。当他们工作时，听听学生是否认识到史密斯在两个来源中讲述了截然不同的故事。他们能识别出体现这种差异的短语和细节吗？在第二轮中，学生使用两位历史学家的叙述和随附的工具（来源 1.3、1.4、工具1.3）。再次注意学生是否注意到这些帐户之间的差异。在可选的第三轮中，学生们将讨论最后两个历史学家的叙述和工具（来源1.5、1.6、工具1.4）。在整个课程中，波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯的问题引导着学生的作业和课堂讨论。最后，学生写下问题的答案，并要求他们使用文档中的证据（例如，直接引用、细节和细节）来支持他们的论点。你可能想通过重温迪士尼电影并要求学生解决历史资料如何挑战该事件的著名动画版本来为写作作业做序言。使用工具 1.5来构建此作业。

In the first round, students work with Smith’s accounts and accompanying tools (Sources 1.1 and 1.2, Tool 1.2). As they work, listen to whether students recognize that Smith tells contrasting stories in the two sources. Can they identify phrases and details that exemplify this difference? In the second round, students work with two historians’ accounts and accompanying tools (Source 1.3, 1.4, Tool 1.3). Again, pay attention to whether students note differences between these accounts. In the optional third round, students tackle the final two historians’ accounts and tools (Source 1.5, 1.6, Tool 1.4). Throughout the entire lesson, the question of whether Pocahontas rescued John Smith guides student work and class discussion. Finally, students write an answer to the question with the requirement that they use evidence (e.g., direct quotes, details, and specifics) from the documents to support their argument. You may want to preface the writing assignment by revisiting the Disney movie and asking students to address how the historical sources challenge the well-known animated version of the event. Use Tool 1.5 to structure this assignment.

场景 2（2-3 小时课程）。历史到底是什么？使用这些资源和工具向学生明确历史调查的一些核心特征、材料和词汇。

Scenario 2 (2–3 Hour Lesson). What is history anyway? Use these sources and tools to make explicit for your students some core features, materials, and vocabulary of historical investigation.

复制场景 1，开始将有关历史本质的直接指导融入到您的课程中。这种额外的指导在学生完成文档分析之后但在写最终论文之前效果最好，尽管它可能会在每个步骤之后整合。

Replicating Scenario 1, begin to integrate direct instruction about the nature of history into your lessons. This additional instruction works best after students have completed the document analysis rounds but before they write their final essay, although it may be integrated after each step.

您可以教您的学生文档集 1 和文档集 2（即次要来源和主要来源）之间的区别。你可以定义“来源”、“证据”和“解释”。您可以回顾一下学生们对本课程的指导性问题变得更加聪明的过程，其中包括阅读、分析和综合多个帐户；用证据支持断言；并询问消息来源和他们自己，以确定他们还想知道什么或他们确实不知道什么。指出历史学家对发生的事情及其含义提出问题。并帮助学生认识到历史调查是一个递归过程，人们必须不断根据现有证据检查主张，并且绝对答案并不总是可能的。

You might teach your students about the difference between Document Sets 1 and 2, i.e., secondary and primary sources. You could define “source,” “evidence,” and “interpretation.” You can review the students’ process of getting smarter about this lesson’s guiding question, which included reading, analyzing, and synthesizing the multiple accounts; backing up assertions with evidence; and asking questions of the sources and of themselves to pinpoint what else they would like to know or what they indeed don’t know. Point out that historians ask questions about what happened and what it meant. And help students recognize that historical investigation is a recursive process, where one has to continually check claims against the available evidence, and absolute answers are not always possible.

为了检查理解情况，学生可以像场景 1 中那样以书面形式回答问题。或者，他们可以回答以下问题：为什么我们不能确定波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯？至少写下三个原因。

To check for understanding, students can answer the question in writing as they do in Scenario 1. Alternatively, they can address the following question: Why can’t we know for certain whether Pocahontas rescued John Smith? Write down a minimum of three reasons.

• 对于每个原因，至少写出两个支持该原因的具体细节或引用。
• For each reason write at least two specific details or quotes that support that reason.
• 比较来源，至少在两个例子中阐明你的观点。
• Compare sources to make your point in at least two instances.

学生的回答可以采用段落、论文、脱口秀采访或图形组织等形式。这个问题促使学生思考“做”历史意味着什么以及历史文本在发展历史解释中的作用。

Students’ responses could take the form of a paragraph, essay, talk show interview, or graphic organizer, among other possibilities. This question prompts students to think about what it means to “do” history and the role of historical texts in developing historical interpretations.

场景 3（2-3 小时课程）。神话还是历史，有什么区别？使用这些来源和工具来明确重建过去的证据性质以及这与神话创造的对比。

Scenario 3 (2–3 Hour Lesson). Myth or history, what’s the difference? Use these sources and tools to make explicit the evidentiary nature of reconstructing the past and how this contrasts with myth-making.

学生参与情景 1 中描述的阅读和讨论轮次，体验历史学家必须如何分析和综合多个叙述以创建连贯的论点。然而，在这种情况下，学生随后会分析神话创造的例子，包括迪士尼电影和约翰·查普曼 1840 年悬挂在国会大厦圆形大厅的风中奇缘画作。

Students participate in the reading and discussion rounds described in Scenario 1, experiencing how historians must analyze and synthesize multiple accounts to create coherent arguments. However, in this scenario, students subsequently analyze examples of myth-making, including the Disney movie and John Chapman’s 1840 painting of Pocahontas that hangs in the Capitol Rotunda.

仔细观看每件艺术作品后，学生会考虑以下问题：使用了哪些符号？风中奇缘的这一形象中蕴藏着哪些更大的信息（无论是对当代观众还是现在的观众）？风中奇缘的这种表现有什么目的（无论是在其创作时还是现在）？在全班活动中，引导学生制作图表，比较历史与神话。请参阅 David Lowenthal 的文章“Fabricating Heritage”，以帮助您考虑这种比较可能是什么样子。²⁰

After looking carefully at each artistic piece, students consider the questions: What symbols are used? What larger messages (both to its contemporary audience and present-day audience) are embedded in this representation of Pocahontas? What purposes does this representation of Pocahontas serve (both at the time of its creation and present day)? In a whole-class activity, guide students in making a chart comparing history to myth. See David Lowenthal’s essay “Fabricating Heritage” for help in considering what this comparison might look like.²⁰

来源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源1.1：“真实关系” （改编版）

SOURCE 1.1: “TRUE RELATION” (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘录自约翰·史密斯 (John Smith) (1608)，自弗吉尼亚州首次种植殖民地以来发生的此类事件和值得注意的事故的真实关系。在《早期弗吉尼亚的叙述》中，1606-1625 年，编辑。LG 加德纳（纽约：查尔斯·斯克里布纳之子，1907 年），48、50。

Source: Excerpt adapted from John Smith (1608), A true relation of such occurrences and accidents of note as hath happened in Virginia since the first planting of that colony. In Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606–1625, ed. L. G. Gardiner (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907), 48, 50.

在线传真版可在www.americanjourneys.org/aj-074/获取

Online facsimile edition available at www.americanjourneys.org/aj-074/

（原来的）

(Original)

到达韦拉莫科科时，他们的皇帝自豪地躺在一张高一英尺的床榻上，上面有十个或十二个马特斯……他的面容如此严肃而威严，让我钦佩不已…… 他用善意的言辞和丰盛的各种食物热情地欢迎了我，向我保证了他的友谊和我在四天内的自由……。熙问我我们来的原因……质问为什么我们带着我们的船走得更远……。

Arriving at Weramocomoco, their emperour proudly lying uppon a Bedstead a foote high upon tenne or twelve Mattes … with such a grave and majesticall countenance, as drave me into admiration…. hee kindly welcomed me with good wordes, and great Platters of sundrie victuals, assuring mee his friendship, and my libertie within foure days…. Hee asked mee the cause of our comming … demaunded why we went further with our Boate….

……他答应给我玉米、鹿肉，或者我想吃的东西：斧头和铜应该让他，没有人应该打扰我们。我答应执行这个请求：因此，他尽了一切善意，试图满足我，他送我回家……。

… Hee promised to give me Corne, Venison, or what I wanted to feede us: Hatchets and Copper wee should make him, and none should disturbe us. This request I promised to performe: and thus, having with all the kindnes hee could devise, sought to content me, hee sent me home….

 

 

资料来源1.2：“通史” （改编版）

SOURCE 1.2: “GENERAL HISTORY” (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘录自约翰·史密斯 (John Smith) (1624)，《弗吉尼亚、新英格兰和夏季群岛通史》。约翰·史密斯船长全集（1580-1631），卷。2，编辑，PL Barbour（教堂山：北卡罗来纳大学出版社，1986 年），151。

Source: Excerpt adapted from John Smith (1624), General History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles. In The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580–1631), Vol. 2, ed., P. L. Barbour (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 151.

也可在线访问http://www.virtualjamestown.org/firsthand.html

Also available online at http://www.virtualjamestown.org/firsthand.html

（原来的）

(Original)

最后他们把他带到了梅罗诺科科科，那里是他们的皇帝波瓦坦…… 当他进入国王面前时，所有的人都大声喊叫……并且……以他们能做到的最好的野蛮方式招待了他，进行了长时间的协商，但结论是，两块大石头被带到了波瓦坦面前：然后，作为许多人都可以把手放在他身上，把他拖到他们身边，然后把他的头放在上面，并准备好用棍棒敲打他的大脑，波卡洪塔斯，国王最亲爱的女儿，当没有恳求成功时，把他的头插进了她的身体里。武器，并把自己的武器放在他身上以拯救他免于死亡；皇帝对自己的生活感到满意……

At last they brought him to Meronocomoco, where was Powhatan their Emperor…. At his entrance before the King, all the people gave a great shout … and … having feasted him after their best barbarous manner they could, a long consultation was held, but the conclusion was, two great stones were brought before Powhatan: then, as many as could layd hands on him, dragged him to them, and thereon laid his head, and being ready with their clubs, to beate out his braines, Pocahontas, the Kings dearest daughter, when no intreaty could prevaile, got his head in her armes, and laid her owne upon his to save him from death; whereat the Emperour was contented he should live….

两天后，波瓦坦以他所能做到的最可怕的方式伪装自己，导致史密斯上尉被带到树林里的一所大房子里，并独自留在火边的一张垫子上……然后波瓦坦更像是一个魔鬼然后一个人……来到他面前，告诉他现在他们是朋友了，不久他就应该去詹姆斯敦，送他两把大枪和一块磨石，为此他会……永远把他当作自己的儿子……。

Two dayes after, Powhatan having disguised himselfe in the most fearefullest manner he could, caused Captaine Smith to be brought forth to a great house in the woods, and there upon a mat by the fire to be left alone … then Powhatan more like a devill then a man … came unto him and told him now they were friends, and presently he should goe to James towne, to send him two great gunnes, and a gryndstone, for which he would … for ever esteeme him as his sonne….

 

 

资料来源1.3：“A DAMS 的解释”（改编版）

SOURCE 1.3: “ADAMS’S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘要改编自 Henry Adams（1867 年 1 月），“Captain John Smith”，The North American Review 104 (214)。

Source: Summary adapted from Henry Adams (1867, January), “Captain John Smith,” The North American Review 104 (214).

 

 

资料来源1.4：“L EMAY的解释” （改编版）

SOURCE 1.4: “LEMAY‘S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘要改编自 JA Leo Lemay，《约翰·史密斯船长的美国梦》（夏洛茨维尔：弗吉尼亚大学出版社，1991 年）。

Source: Summary adapted from J. A. Leo Lemay, The American Dream of Captain John Smith (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991).

资料来源1.5：“刘易斯的解释”（改编版）

SOURCE 1.5: “LEWIS’S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘要改编自 Paul Lewis，《The Great Rogue：John Smith 传记》（纽约：David McKay Company，1966 年）。

Source: Summary adapted from Paul Lewis, The Great Rogue: A Biography of John Smith (New York: David McKay Company, 1966).

 

 

资料来源1.6：“B ARBOUR 的解释”（修订版）

SOURCE 1.6: “BARBOUR’S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘要改编自菲利普·巴伯 (Philip Barbour) 的《波卡洪塔斯和她的世界》(Pocahontas and Her World)（波士顿：霍顿·米夫林 (Houghton Mifflin)，1969 年）。

Source: Summary adapted from Philip Barbour, Pocahontas and Her World (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969).

工具1.2：比较史密斯的账户_

TOOL 1.2: COMPARING SMITH’S ACCOUNTS

---

1. 史密斯关于 1607 年 12 月被囚禁的两段叙述有哪些不同的事实？（使用下面的空间回答或在本表背面创建维恩图。）
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   真实关系（来源 1.1）说：
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   通史（来源 1.2）说：
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. What are the different facts in Smith’s two accounts of his captivity in December 1607? (Use the space below to answer or create a Venn diagram on the back of this sheet.)
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   A True Relation (Source 1.1) says:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   General History (Source 1.2) says:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 史密斯为什么要补充他之前的故事呢？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. Why would Smith add on to his earlier story?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 他为什么会撒谎或夸大并发明新信息？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Why might he lie or exaggerate and invent new information?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 他为什么不对这个故事撒谎呢？
8. Why wouldn’t he lie about the story?

工具1.3：比较历史学家和史密斯_

TOOL 1.3: COMPARING HISTORIANS AND SMITH

---

假设史密斯最新叙述（《弗吉尼亚通史》 ）中的基本事实（尽管不一定是对事实的解释）是真实的，请在下面记录该段落中事实的“逐个”描述：

Assuming that the basic facts (though not necessarily the interpretation of the facts) in Smith’s latest account (the General History of Virginia) are true, record below a “play-by-play” description of the facts in the passage:

1.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
8.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
9.  
10.  

 

 

哪些历史学家相信上述基本顺序确实发生过？

Which historians believe that the basic sequence above did occur?

 

 

描述他们认为事实（上述）的含义：

Describe what they think the facts (above) mean:

1. 历史学家___________________相信……
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. Historian ___________________ believes …
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 历史学家___________________相信……
4. Historian ___________________ believes …

工具1.4：比较历史学家和史密斯_

TOOL 1.4: COMPARING HISTORIANS AND SMITH

---

请参阅史密斯最新报道中对事实的“逐场”描述。将其与刘易斯和巴伯对这些事实的解释进行比较。

Refer to the “play-by-play” description of the facts in Smith’s latest account. Compare this to Lewis’s and Barbour’s interpretations of these facts.

 

 

哪些历史学家相信上述基本顺序确实发生过？

Which historians believe that the basic sequence above did occur?

 

 

 

 

描述他们认为事实（上述）的含义：

Describe what they think the facts (above) mean:

1. 历史学家___________________相信……
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. Historian ___________________ believes …
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 历史学家___________________相信……
4. Historian ___________________ believes …

 

 

工具1.5 ：分析文章宝嘉康塔斯拯救了约翰·史密斯吗？_ _ _

TOOL 1.5: ANALYTICAL ESSAY DID POCAHONTAS SAVE JOHN SMITH?

---

1. 再次观看迪士尼短片《风中奇缘》拯救约翰·史密斯。迪士尼声称其电影“负责任、准确且尊重”。你同意？为什么或者为什么不？在论文中解释你的立场。使用文档中的证据来支持您对此影片剪辑的分析。

1. Watch the Disney clip of Pocahontas saving John Smith again. Disney claims that its film is “responsible, accurate, and respectful.” Do you agree? Why or why not? Explain your position in an essay. Use evidence from the documents to support your analysis of this film clip.

2. 写下你的论文大纲并与你的老师分享。

2. Write an outline of your essay and share it with your teacher.

1. 包括明确的立场。
2. Include a clear position.
3. 列出您想提出的观点来支持您的立场。
4. List the points you want to make to support your position.
5. 引用支持你的立场的关键证据。
6. Cite key pieces of evidence that support your position.

3.写你的论文。

3. Write your essay.

1. 在介绍性段落中表达您的立场。
2. Convey your position in the introductory paragraph.
3. 解释你的观点和证据。
4. Explain your points and your evidence.
5. 最后总结一下你的论点。
6. Conclude with a wrap-up of your argument.

建议资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/

该网站是弗吉尼亚理工大学和弗吉尼亚大学及其数字历史中心合作创建的，包含丰富的教学资源，包括第一手资料和对当地印第安人的视频采访。

This site, created through collaboration between Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia and its Center for Digital History, includes a rich set of teaching and learning resources, including first-hand accounts and video interviews with local Indians.

http://historicjamestowne.org/

http://historicjamestowne.org/

该网站由弗吉尼亚古物保护协会和国家公园管理局维护，包括早期殖民者的传记以及让学生了解正在进行的考古挖掘和该地区地理的教学资源。

Maintained by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia’s Antiquities and the National Park Service, this site includes biographies of the early colonists and teaching resources for involving students with the ongoing archeological digs and the area’s geography.

http://www.apva.org/jr.html

http://www.apva.org/jr.html

这是詹姆斯敦遗址考古工作的主页，由弗吉尼亚古物保护协会维护。它包括有关正在进行的挖掘的展览和更新以及与詹姆斯敦相关的简要历史。

Maintained by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia’s Antiquities, this is the home page for the archeological efforts at the Jamestown site. It includes exhibits and updates about the ongoing digs and brief histories relevant to Jamestown.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/loudountah/exploresources.php

http://chnm.gmu.edu/loudountah/exploresources.php

一个独特的网站，展示了一位小学教师与她的学生一起规划和使用约翰·史密斯 1612 年弗吉尼亚地图的视频，以及一位学者对该地图的分析。

A unique site that shows a video of an elementary teacher planning and using John Smith’s 1612 map of Virginia with her students as well as a scholar’s analysis of the map.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/POCA/POC-home.html

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/POCA/POC-home.html

该网站主要关注风中奇缘以及她随时间的表现。在这里您可以找到洗礼画。

This site focuses on Pocahontas and representations of her over time. Here you can find the Baptism painting.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pocahontas

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pocahontas

这个 PBS 视频《风中奇缘揭晓》的姊妹网站包括“詹姆斯敦科学”专题、对历史学家和潮水印第安酋长的采访，以及风中奇缘形象变化的互动展览。

This companion site to the PBS video Pocahontas Revealed includes a feature on the “science of Jamestown,” interviews with a historian and a Tidewater Indian chief, and an interactive exhibit of the changing images of Pocahontas.

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/Trial/pocahontas/index.php

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/pocahontas/index.php

该网站由一位英语教授维护档案，拥有有关风中奇缘的各种资源。

An archive maintained by an English professor, this site has an extensive variety of resources concerning Pocahontas.

http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/index.htm

http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/index.htm

该网站由国家公园管理局维护，包含有关詹姆斯敦及其居民的许多方面的情况说明书。

Maintained by the National Park Service, this site includes fact sheets about many aspects of Jamestown and its residents.

http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/amerhistory/interactives/

http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/amerhistory/interactives/

用户可以将风中奇缘的表现与描述相匹配，然后访问生动的上下文线索将它们放置在时间线上。这项基于网络的互动活动使用风中奇缘不断变化的表现形式来引入时间顺序思维。

Users can match representations of Pocahontas with descriptions and then access lively contextual clues to place them on a timeline. This interactive web-based activity uses changing representations of Pocahontas to introduce chronological thinking.

为了纪念列克星敦战役（“全世界都听到了枪声”）150 周年，美国邮政局发行了一枚 2 美分的纪念邮票（来源2.3）。该邮票于 1925 年发行，描绘了民兵坚决对抗英国优势军队的实线。这张照片描绘了民兵们还击、重新装弹和挑衅地挥舞拳头的各个阶段，展现了美国人自豪地认为是事实的故事的英雄版本。

For the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington—the “shot heard ’round the world”—the U.S. Postal Service produced a two-cent commemorative stamp (Source 2.3). Issued in 1925, the stamp depicts a solid line of Minutemen resolutely facing superior British forces. Portraying the Minutemen in various stages of returning fire, reloading, and defiantly shaking their fists, the image projects a heroic version of the story that Americans had proudly come to regard as fact.

只有一个小问题：该邮票不是基于战斗目击者的描述，而是基于 Henry Sandham 1886 年的一幅绘画。桑德姆的画作是在实际事件发生一个多世纪后完成的（来源 2.2 ），描绘了叛逆的美国人不顾离开列克星敦格林的命令。然而，如果我们看一下该事件的另一幅渲染图，即在事件发生几周后而不是几年后创建的渲染图，就会出现不同的印象。1775 年秋天，一位名叫阿莫斯·杜立特 (Amos Doolittle) 的 21 岁银匠创作了一幅金属雕刻，描绘了那年 4 月发生的遭遇（来源 2.1）。杜立特的蚀刻画中，英国正规军向一群逃跑的民兵开枪，列克星敦民兵中没有一个人表现出丝毫抵抗的迹象。杜立特版画中的殖民者在面对压倒性的困难时并没有昂首挺胸。他们正在逃命。

There was only one little problem: The stamp was based not on eyewitness accounts of the battle, but on an 1886 painting by Henry Sandham. Completed well over a century after the actual event (Source 2.2), Sandham’s painting showed rebellious Americans defying orders to leave Lexington Green. However, if we look at another rendering of the event, one created weeks after the event, not years, a different impression emerges. In the fall of 1775, a 21-year-old silversmith named Amos Doolittle created a metal engraving depicting the encounter that had taken place that April (Source 2.1). Doolittle’s etching has British regulars firing on a ragtag group of fleeing Minutemen, with not a single member of the Lexington militia showing the slightest sign of resistance. The colonists in Doolittle’s engraving are not standing tall in the face of overwhelming odds. They are fleeing for their lives.

这两幅图像之间的鲜明对比——第一幅承载了美国邮政服务的分量和合法性，第二幅由康涅狄格州一位不起眼的工匠绘制——给我们带来了一个关键问题：4 月 19 日早上在列克星敦格林发生了什么， 1775? 这场遭遇，用“战斗”来形容还合适吗？称之为“大屠杀”或者甚至是不幸但血腥的误解会更好吗？为了简单起见，是否中立地将这一事件称为“列克星敦事件”？

The striking contrast between these two images—the first carrying the weight and legitimacy of the United States Postal Service, the second drawn by an obscure Connecticut craftsman—brings us to a critical question: What happened at Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775? Is it even appropriate to call this encounter a “battle”? Would it be better labeled a “massacre” or even an unfortunate but bloody misunderstanding? Would it be preferable, for simplicity’s sake, to refer to this event neutrally as the “Incident at Lexington”?

史学争论

Historiographical Debate

事件发生约 50 年后，列克星敦到底发生了什么的问题才浮出水面，当时列克星敦和康科德两镇为谁在美国革命中流下了第一批英国人的血而争论不休。1825 年，列克星敦的埃利亚斯·菲尼 (Elias Phinney) 出版了他的《列克星敦战役历史》，试图反驳有关美国第一次抵抗实际上发生在邻近的康科德的说法。菲尼利用事发 50 年后目击者的证词，以与桑德姆 1886 年的画作（以及 1925 年的邮票）一致的方式描述了列克星敦战役。根据菲尼的叙述，民兵队长约翰·帕克命令“每个人都坚守阵地”，并威胁要射杀第一个离开岗位的人。芬尼随后列出了每一位坚守阵地并向英军还击的民兵，其中包括几名受伤后继续战斗的民兵。难怪亨利·桑德姆 1886 年的画作与菲尼的作品相对应：它是由列克星敦历史学会委托创作的，该协会向桑德姆支付了 4 美元，¹

The question of what really happened at Lexington came to light some 50 years after the event as the towns of Lexington and Concord fought over the distinction of who spilled the first British blood of the American Revolution. In 1825, Lexington’s Elias Phinney published his History of the Battle at Lexington, an effort to refute claims that the first American resistance actually occurred at neighboring Concord. Using depositions of eyewitnesses taken 50 years after the fact, Phinney describes the Battle of Lexington in ways consistent with Sandham’s 1886 painting (and, for that matter, the 1925 postage stamp). According to Phinney’s account, John Parker, the Minutemen’s captain, ordered “every man to stand his ground” and threatened to shoot the first man who left his post. Phinney then lists each Minuteman who stood his ground and returned fire on the British, including several who continued fighting after sustaining wounds. No wonder, then, that Henry Sandham’s 1886 painting corresponds to Phinney’s work: It was commissioned by the Lexington Historical Society, which paid Sandham $4,000 for an illustration that portrayed Lexington’s sons in a courageous light.¹

菲尼的说法七年后，康科德大学的埃兹拉·里普利 (Ezra Ripley) 提出了反驳。里普利认为，对英国人的第一次武装抵抗发生在康科德，列克星敦的民兵从未向英国人还击。相反，他声称英国人一开始开火，列克星敦民兵就陷入混乱（这一描述与 1775 年杜立特的版画相对应）。几乎没有证据支持美国人在列克星敦进行反击的观点。里普利认为，那些确实证实了这一说法的描述是由英国军官做出的，他们不仅在证明美国人已经开枪，而且首先开枪方面拥有既得利益。里普利建议列克星敦事件可以称为大屠杀或混战，但不能称为战斗。相反，他断言美国革命的第一次真正的战斗发生在康科德。²尽管里普利的叙述有其优势，但它几乎不加掩饰地试图为康科德赢得在美国独立战争中第一个反击英国的荣誉，就像菲尼的叙述试图为列克星敦赢得这一荣誉一样。

Seven years after Phinney’s account, Concord’s Ezra Ripley issued a rebuttal. Arguing that the first armed resistance to the British had taken place at Concord, Ripley contended that Lexington’s Minutemen never returned fire on the British. Instead, he claimed that the Lexington militia scattered in disarray as soon as the British started firing (a depiction that corresponds with the 1775 Doolittle engraving). Little evidence existed to support the notion that Americans fought back at Lexington. Those descriptions that did substantiate that claim, Ripley argued, were by British officers who had a vested interest not only in showing that the Americans had fired their weapons, but fired first. Ripley suggested that the incident at Lexington could be called a massacre or a melee, but not a battle. Instead, he asserted that the first real battle of the American Revolution took place at Concord.² Despite its strengths, Ripley’s account was a thinly veiled attempt to win Concord the honor of being the first to fight back against the British in the American Revolution, just as Phinney’s was an attempt to claim that distinction for Lexington.

近一个世纪后，在马萨诸塞州历史学会的一次会议上，来自波士顿的银行家兼业余历史学家哈罗德·默多克发表了一篇论文，对列克星敦战役的传统描述提出了质疑。他认为，美国人公然抵抗英国进攻的故事是由于“大量可疑证据的积累”逐渐被接受为事实。“传统、传说、曲调和歌曲都在列克星敦故事的重建中发挥了作用。” ³在论证列克星敦发生的事情时，默多克从杜立特的雕刻开始，指出“即使是放大镜也未能显示出该公司的任何成员处于抵抗态度；” 没有任何还击的建议，甚至没有装弹的建议。” ⁴默多克解释说，随着时间的推移，艺术效果图描绘了美国人的更大程度的抵抗，最终在桑德姆 1886 年的画作中达到顶峰，在这幅画中，殖民者以携带步枪的叛乱者的形象出现。虽然默多克没有向历史证据提供新的信息，但他煞费苦心地详细说明了菲尼的叙述、桑德姆的绘画和其他证据中的差异，例如英国人造成的伤亡非常少（一名表面受伤的士兵和一匹受伤的马）。

Nearly a century later, at a meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Harold Murdock, a banker and amateur historian from Boston, delivered a paper that called into question the traditional account of the Battle of Lexington. The story of Americans defiantly resisting a British advance, he argued, was due to “the accumulation of a mass of questionable evidence” that had gradually become accepted as truth. “Tradition, legend, tune, and song all played their part in the reconstruction of the Lexington story.”³ In making the argument for what happened at Lexington, Murdock began with the Doolittle engraving, noting that “even the magnifying glass fail[ed] to reveal any member of that company in an attitude of resistance; no suggestion of a return fire, or even of loading.”⁴ Over time, Murdock explained, artistic renderings depicted greater levels of resistance on the part of the Americans, culminating in Sandham’s 1886 painting in which the colonists emerged as musket-toting rebels. While Murdock introduced no new information to the body of historical evidence, he painstakingly detailed the discrepancies in Phinney’s account, Sandham’s painting, and other evidence, such as the remarkably few casualties sustained by the British (one superficially wounded soldier and a wounded horse).

1959 年，亚瑟·图特洛 (Arthur Tourtellot) 用随后几年获得的证据支持了默多克的论点。虽然承认美国人可能实际上向英国人开火，但他指出“美国人的火力在数量上与英国人相差甚远，而且极其不稳定和不规则”——显然不是民兵重新装弹的实线。近距离。⁵根据这些学者的说法，列克星敦“战役”这个值得纪念邮票的故事似乎更像是神话而不是历史。

In 1959 Arthur Tourtellot supported Murdock’s arguments with evidence that had become available in the intervening years. While conceding that the Americans might have actually fired on the British, he noted that “the American fire did not come close to matching the British in volume, and it was extremely erratic and irregular”—clearly not a solid line of Minutemen reloading their firearms at close range.⁵ Based on the claims of these scholars, the “Battle” of Lexington, a tale worthy of commemorative postage stamps, would seem to be more myth than history.

主要来源怎么说？诚然，对于 1775 年 4 月 19 日上午列克星敦格林究竟发生了什么仍存在分歧，但共识不是一场史诗般的战斗，而是杜立特 1775 年版画中描绘的混乱撤退。列克星敦民兵本身的主要叙述强化了这个版本。1775 年 4 月 23 日至 25 日，即列克星敦和康科德事件发生几天后，马萨诸塞省议会（一个由殖民地建立的法外管理机构）安排太平绅士（有利于民兵事业）听取来自民兵的证词。那些在列克星敦格林的人。这些证词被送交议会并在英格兰各地发表，试图将殖民地人民描绘成英国军队野蛮行径的无辜受害者。该时期的殖民地法官听取了 97 人的 21 份证词；有些证词只列出了 1 或 2 个人的名字，有些则包含了 30 多名证人的名字。

What Do the Primary Sources Say? To be sure, disagreement remains over what exactly happened on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775, but the consensus points away from an epic battle and more toward the chaotic retreat depicted in Doolittle’s 1775 engraving. This version is strengthened by the primary accounts of the Lexington Minutemen themselves. On April 23–25, 1775, several days after the events at Lexington and Concord, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, an extralegal governing body set up by the colonials, arranged for justices of the peace (favorable to the Minutemen’s cause) to take depositions from those present on Lexington Green. These depositions were sent to Parliament and published throughout England in an effort to portray the colonials as innocent victims of the British army’s barbarism. Colonial justices of the period took 21 depositions from 97 individuals; while some of the depositions bore the name of only 1 or 2, some contained the names of over 30 deponents.

一份来自 Nathaniel Mulliken、Philip Russell 和其他 32 名列克星敦民兵成员的证词对列克星敦格林的场景进行了如下描述（参见来源 2.5）：

One such deposition, taken from Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, and 32 other members of the Lexington militia, described the scene at Lexington Green as follows (see Source 2.5):

与此时取得的其他证词一样，这份报告坚决认为英国人首先开火，而且不是向民兵阵线开火，而是向背对而逃的四散人群开火。虽然这样的形象并不讨好列克星敦民兵，但它有助于让其他殖民地以及议会成员相信英国军队的残酷行为。尽管这份证词提供了令人信服的证据，但它也可能受到殖民者寻求将自己描绘成单方面屠杀受害者的政治利益的影响。我们应该考虑对同一事件的不同观点。

Like the other depositions taken at this time, the account adamantly held that the British fired first, and not on a firmly planted line of Minutemen, but on a dispersing crowd fleeing with their backs turned. While not flattering to the Lexington militia, such an image would have been useful in convincing the other colonies, as well as members of Parliament, of the cruelty of the British troops. While the deposition presents compelling evidence, it may also have been tainted by the political interests of colonials seeking to portray themselves as victims of a one-sided massacre. We should consider additional perspectives on the same events.

约翰·巴克中尉是英国第四团轻步兵连的成员，也是当天早上在列克星敦格林的军官之一，他在日记中记录了对这些事件的惊人相似的描述（见来源 2.4 ）：

Lieutenant John Barker, a member of the British Light Infantry Company of the Fourth Regiment and one of the officers present on Lexington Green that morning, recorded in his diary a surprisingly similar account of these events (see Source 2.4):

在查看美国和英国版本的列克星敦格林事件时，我们可能会发现一些差异。例如，每份报告都声称对方先开火，这并不奇怪。但更引人注目的是这些说法的吻合之处：双方都没有描述民兵的重大抵抗。

In looking at both American and British versions of the events at Lexington Green, we might expect some differences. It is not surprising, for instance, that each report claimed that the other fired first. But more striking is where these accounts match up: Neither side describes significant resistance by the Minutemen.

当历史学家试图发现过去发生的事情时，他们依靠佐证，即仔细考虑不同来源之间的联系点。当多个消息来源达成一致时，特别是当它们来自对立双方时，我们可以更好地评估它们的准确性。一名英国军官的日记证实了民兵的证词，这一事实为该事件的这一版本提供了更大的可信度。

When historians try to discover what happened in the past, they rely on corroboration, the careful consideration of points of contact across different sources. When multiple sources agree, particularly when they come from opposing sides, we can take greater stock in their accuracy. The fact that a British officer’s diary corroborates the deposition given by the Minutemen lends greater credibility to this version of the event.

主要来源是提炼成历史课学生教科书叙述的原材料。但神话也渗透进教科书。考虑以下摘自 1963 年美国中学生历史教科书的一段话：

Primary sources are the raw materials that get distilled into the textbook narratives served up to students in history classes. But myth creeps into textbooks as well. Consider the following passage taken from a 1963 American history textbook for middle school students:

教科书重复了民兵在被命令解散时“坚守阵地”的说法。然而，民兵们自己的证词和巴克的日记都没有提到民兵们“坚守阵地”。

The textbook repeats the claim that the Minutemen “stood their ground” when ordered to disperse. Yet neither the Minutemen’s own depositions nor Barker’s diary say anything about the Minutemen “standing their ground.”

如果我们看一下另一个来源，即列克星敦格林事件发生时耶鲁大学校长埃兹拉·斯蒂尔斯 (Ezra Stiles) 的日记，我们会对可能发生的事情有更深入的了解（来源 2.6 ）。根据斯泰尔斯从英军指挥官皮特凯恩少校那里得到的描述，美国殖民者在被命令驱散时确实“坚守阵地”。然而，一旦射击开始，他们就开始逃命。正如斯泰尔斯所记录的：

If we look at yet another source, the diary of Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale College at the time of the events at Lexington Green, we gain a deeper understanding of what may have happened (Source 2.6). According to an account Stiles received from Major Pitcairn, who commanded the British troops, the American colonists did “stand their ground” when they were ordered to disperse. However, once firing commenced, they ran for their lives. As Stiles recorded it:

皮特凯恩没有说他首先看到美国人开火。他也没有说，一旦开火，他们就坚守阵地。他所说的是，殖民者违抗了离开列克星敦格林的命令。斯泰尔斯的版本并不一定与巴克或马利肯的版本相矛盾。也许民兵确实坚守阵地，但当枪声响起时，他们可能没有还击就逃跑了。

Pitcairn did not say that he saw the Americans fire first. Nor does he say that once the firing began they stood their ground. What he does say is that the colonists defied an order to quit Lexington Green. Stiles’s version does not necessarily contradict those of Barker or Mulliken. Perhaps the Minutemen did stand their ground, but when shots were fired, they may have fled without returning fire.

关于列克星敦格林事件的悬而未决的问题仍然存在，特别是关于谁开了第一枪。巴克声称，当军队接近绿地时，民兵向英国人“开了一两枪”；民兵辩称，他们在转身时遭到射击。虽然并不奇怪，但这种差异实际上告诉我们更多的是每份文件的目的，而不是所描述的实际事件——在判断文件的可信度时要记住这一点。没有任何文件是凭空写成的。每份文件的历史背景或背景到底是什么？

Unanswered questions continue to swirl about the events on Lexington Green, especially concerning who fired the first shot. Barker claimed that as troops approached the Green, the Minutemen “fired one or two shots” at the British; the Minutemen argued that they were fired upon when their backs were turned. While not surprising, the discrepancy actually tells us more about the purpose of each document than the actual events described—a point to keep in mind when judging a document’s trustworthiness. No document is written in a vacuum. What exactly were the historical circumstances, or context, for each document?

我们知道，民兵的声明是省议会向议会和英国人民发出的，希望将自己描绘成英国侵略的无辜受害者，而不是煽动的革命者。就巴克而言，他写日记可能不仅仅是为了记录他内心深处的感受，而是因为如果他必须向上级当局证明自己的行为是正当的，这可能会为他开脱。事实上，在我们与一群历史学家和一群高中生一起使用这些文件进行的一项研究中，其中一位历史学家向我们暗示，巴克可能一直在试图“掩盖他的背后”。夹在两种不讨人喜欢的选择之间——承认他下达了开火命令或承认他失去了对部队的控制——后一种选择更可取。¹⁰因此，如果中尉必须为自己辩护以应对发出开枪命令的指控，巴克的日记将提供不在场证据。如果说他有错的话，那也不是因为他下达了开火命令，而是因为他的部下经过三个小时的行军，又累又湿，在遭到射击时还击，这是有罪的。

We know that the Minutemen’s statement was sent by the Provincial Congress to Parliament and the British people, hoping to portray themselves as innocent victims of British aggression, not rabblerousing revolutionaries. For his part, Barker likely didn’t keep a diary simply to record his innermost feelings, but because it might serve to exonerate him if he had to justify his actions to higher authorities. Indeed, in a study we did using these documents with a group of historians and a group of high school students, one of the historians suggested to us that Barker may have been trying to “cover his backside.” Caught between two unflattering alternatives—admitting that he issued an order to fire or admitting that he lost control over his troops—the latter option was preferable.¹⁰ Thus, Barker’s diary would provide an alibi if the lieutenant had to defend himself against a charge of issuing an order to shoot. If he was at fault, it wasn’t because he issued an order to fire, but because his men, tired and soggy after a 3-hour march, were guilty of firing back when fired upon.

学生面临的挑战。当历史学家审查有关列克星敦或任何历史事件的证据时，他们首先使用一套通用的问题解决策略。首先，他们询问来源，我们将这个过程称为“采购”。约翰·巴克中尉是谁？我们如何知道他的可信度？我们对证人纳撒尼尔·马利肯、菲利普·拉塞尔以及他们召集起来在三名大法官面前作证的团体了解多少？和平？接下来，历史学家考虑文件的背景：例如，为什么民兵要寻求治安法官来就列克星敦发生的事情进行证词？知道他们的证词将被发送给殖民地议会代表本杰明·富兰克林（Benjamin Franklin），这对他们对法官的所作所为有何影响？最后，即使这些文件在关键细节上存在分歧，检查多个文件（佐证行为）如何才能更广泛地理解这些事件？

Challenges for Students. When historians review evidence about Lexington or any historical event, they begin by using a common set of problem solving strategies. First, they ask about the source, a process we refer to as “sourcing.” Who was Lt. John Barker and how do we know he can be believed? What do we know about the deponents Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, and the group they assembled to testify before three Justices of the Peace? Next, historians consider a document’s context: Why, for example, did the Minutemen seek justices of the peace to take depositions for what happened at Lexington? How did knowing that their testimony would be sent to Benjamin Franklin, the colonial representative to Parliament, influence what they did and did not say to the justices? Finally, how does examining multiple documents, the act of corroboration, permit a broader understanding of these events, even when these documents disagree on key details?

在我们上面提到的研究中，我们使用这些列克星敦文件将一组专业历史学家与一组才华横溢的高中生进行了比较。我们特意挑选了美国历史以外专业的历史学家，并特意挑选了参加大学先修课程的学生，他们在有关美国革命的事实测试中取得了良好的成绩。鉴于此处使用的相同来源和教科书段落，每个小组根据每个文档的可靠性对每个文档进行排名。对于历史学家来说，教科书上的这段话排在最后，因为它的说法无法得到证实。¹¹另一方面，学生倾向于认为教科书最可靠，在一个案例中观察到这本书“只是报告事实”。¹²对于学生来说，缺乏确凿证据和每份文献的来源信息似乎并不重要，但这些因素对历史学家来说却至关重要。尽管高中生的阅读能力很强，但他们还没有养成进行历史探究所需的习惯。

In the study we referred to above, we compared a group of professional historians to a group of talented high school students using these Lexington documents. We purposely selected historians with specialties outside of American history, and we purposely selected students enrolled in Advanced Placement classrooms who had scored well on a test of facts about the American Revolution. Given the same sources and textbook passage used here, each group ranked each document in terms of its reliability. For historians, the textbook passage ranked dead last, because its claims could not be verified.¹¹ Students, on the other hand, tended to view the textbook as most reliable, observing in one case that the book was “just reporting the facts.”¹² Neither the lack of corroborating evidence nor the source information for each document seemed of great importance to the students, but those factors were of utmost importance to the historians. Even though the high school students were skilled readers, they had not yet acquired the habits necessary for engaging in historical inquiry.

1775 年 4 月 19 日上午在列克星敦格林发生的事情这一问题，为学生提供了一个成熟的机会，让他们开始培养历史阅读技能和思维习惯。美国人集体记忆的一部分是民兵在列克星敦坚强站立的形象，用拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生的话说，他们开枪时“全世界都听到了枪声”。但对列克星敦证据的审查对这一英雄的描述提出了令人不安的问题。图像和证据之间的差异为学生提供了研究历史的切入点：调查和评估证据，将个人叙述置于更大的背景中，并证实文件，所有这些都是为了构建过去发生的事情的图景。这里学生的任务看似简单：

The question of what happened on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775, provides a ripe opportunity for students to begin to develop historical reading skills and habits of mind. Part of Americans’ collective memory is the image of the Minutemen standing strong at Lexington as they fired, in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s words, the “shot heard ’round the world.” But an examination of the evidence from Lexington raises troubling questions about this heroic depiction. The discrepancies between image and evidence provide students with an entry point into doing history: investigating and evaluating evidence, placing individual accounts into a larger context, and corroborating documents, all with the purpose of constructing a picture of what happened in the past. Here the task for students is deceptively straightforward: to determine whether the Battle of Lexington was, in fact, even a battle!

结论性问题。因此，让我们退后一步，考虑一下我们对列克星敦格林事件的了解，我们永远无法了解的内容，以及仍然可以争取的内容。我们知道，当英国军队在前往康科德的途中抵达列克星敦时，绿地遭到枪击，导致八名民兵死亡、十人受伤，而英国人方面的伤亡极小（可能是友军交火造成的）。我们不知道是谁开了第一枪，而且可能永远不会知道。在这一点上，不同的消息来源相互矛盾，并且每个消息来源都有强烈的动机来声称它确实如此。

Concluding Questions. So let’s step back and consider what we know about the events on Lexington Green, what we will never be able to know, and what is still up for grabs. We know that when the British troops arrived in Lexington en route to Concord shots were fired on the Green that left eight Minutemen dead and ten wounded, and that the British for their part sustained minimal casualties (possibly caused by friendly fire). We do not know who fired the first shot and probably never will. Different sources contradict one another on this point, and each has a strong motive for making the claim that it does.

在这些说法之间，学生们在努力构建准确的历史叙述时可以辩论一些问题：列克星敦之战真的是一场战斗吗？那天早上民兵们打算抵抗英国人吗？如果不是，他们的目标是什么？英国人的意图是什么？在随后的美国独立斗争中，这些事件对美国人和英国意味着什么？

In between these claims are questions that students can debate as they work to construct an accurate historical narrative: Was the battle at Lexington really a battle? Did the Minutemen intend to resist the British that morning? If not, what was their goal? What was the intention of the British? What did these events mean for both the Americans and the British in the context of the ensuing struggle for American independence?

为什么要讲授列克星敦格林战役？

Why Teach About the Battle at Lexington Green?

教授已知知识的机会。历史上的一些事件是众所周知的，并且对于发生的事情几乎没有争议。对于这个话题，毫无疑问，1775 年 4 月 19 日，列克星敦格林发生了一场冲突。然而，其他方面却超出了我们的直接理解。无论我们做什么，我们永远无法绝对确定发生了什么。

An Opportunity to Teach About What Is Knowable. Some events in history are well-established and there is little debate about what happened. For this topic, there is no question that a conflict took place on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775. Yet other aspects lie beyond our immediate understanding. No matter how much we do, we will never know with absolute certainty what happened.

历史学家正是在这个既定事实与未知之间的空间中辛勤劳作。努力理解什么是可以知道的，什么是不可以知道的，迫使学生们与混乱的证据作斗争，并给他们一个从事合法历史工作的机会。

It is in this space—between the well-established and the unknowable—that historians toil. Struggling to understand what can and can’t be known forces students to wrestle with the messiness of evidence, and gives them a chance to engage in legitimate historical work.

探索神话如何与历史交织在一起的机会。每个国家的历史都充满传奇、曲解和神话。教导学生事实不准确如何渗透到历史记录中，甚至被铭刻在邮票上，对于帮助他们培养怀疑精神和对证据的敏锐眼光至关重要。同样重要的是，这种方法将学生变成了寻找真相的历史侦探，这项任务比填写工作表更具激励性。

A Chance to Explore How Myth Becomes Interwoven with History. Every nation’s history is full of legends, distortions, and myths. Teaching students how factual inaccuracies creep into the historical record, even becoming enshrined on a postage stamp, is essential to helping them develop a sense of skepticism and a keen eye for evidence. Equally important, this approach turns students into historical detectives in search of truth, a task far more motivating than filling in a worksheet.

未经英国和美国主要消息来源证实，民兵在列克星敦“高高矗立”的形象是由个人兴趣、可疑的学术和当地的担忧塑造的。因此，它提供了一个机会，让学生思考作者的动机、证据的重要性，以及重写过去以适应当前需要的始终存在的趋势。

Corroborated neither by British nor American primary sources, the image of Minutemen “standing tall” at Lexington has been shaped by personal interest, dubious scholarship, and local concerns. Consequently, it presents an opportunity to teach students to think about the motives of authors, the importance of evidence, and the ever-present tendency to rewrite the past to suit the needs of the present.

使用视觉资源的机会。主要来源是历史的原材料。历史学家常常依靠书面文件来拼凑过去的事件。但视觉来源也可以是主要来源。阿莫斯·杜利特尔 (Amos Doolittle) 于 1775 年雕刻的一切都与埃兹拉·斯蒂尔斯的日记一样是主要来源。两者都是与赛事本身同一年创作的，并且都试图为了子孙后代记录列克星敦格林的赛事。

An Opportunity to Use Visual Sources. Primary sources are the raw materials of history. More often than not, historians rely on written documents to piece together the events of the past. But visual sources can be primary sources, too. Amos Doolittle’s 1775 engraving is every bit as much a primary source as the diary of Ezra Stiles. Both were created in the same year as the event itself, and both attempted to record the events at Lexington Green for the sake of posterity.

使用视觉资源对于历史探究的过程是无价的。即使学生在书面资料上苦苦挣扎，也能有效地找到阿莫斯·杜立特的版画和亨利·桑德姆的油画之间的视觉差异，并就为什么这两个图像可能不一致提出假设。但要注意：当你使用视觉资源时，学生总是会误以为视觉准确性（图片看起来有多真实）与历史准确性。因为桑德姆的画作“看起来更真实”，比杜立特的简笔画有更逼真的描绘，一些学生会认为它是两者中更准确的，即使面对压倒性的相反证据。

Using visual sources is invaluable to the process of history inquiry. Even students struggling with written sources can productively locate the visual discrepancies between Amos Doolittle’s engraving and Henry Sandham’s oil painting, and generate hypotheses for why the two images might disagree. But beware: When you use visual sources, students will invariably mistake visual accuracy—how realistic a picture looks—with historical accuracy. Because Sandham’s painting “looks more real,” with more lifelike depictions than Doolittle’s stick figures, some students will judge it to be the more accurate of the two, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

您将如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

场景 1（1-2 小时课程）。列克星敦格林之战真的是一场战斗吗？分析并比较列克星敦格林冲突的图像，找出可能发生的情况（参见工具 2.1）。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). Was the battle at Lexington Green truly a battle? Analyze and compare images of the conflict at Lexington Green to figure out what might have happened (see Tool 2.1).

从三幅图像开始本课程：Doolittle 雕刻、Sandham 绘画和美国邮票图像（来源2.1、2.2、2.3 ））。不依赖每张图像的日期，让学生描述他们所看到的内容。他们会注意到邮票是根据桑德姆的画作制作的，在学生心目中这可能会赋予该图像特殊的合法性。（否则为什么邮政服务会选择展示它？）帮助学生确定这两个图像提供了同一事件的不同版本。由于桑德姆的绘画得益于在描绘透视和深度方面的艺术进步，一些学生会认为它是两者中更准确的一个。发展历史判断力的一部分是抵制那些吸引眼球的东西，并认识到生动性和艺术现实主义不能替代真实性。

Begin this lesson with three images: the Doolittle engraving, the Sandham painting, and the image of the U.S. postage stamp (Sources 2.1, 2.2, 2.3). Without recourse to the dates of each image, ask students to describe what they see. They will notice that the postage stamp is based on the Sandham painting, which in students’ minds may confer the image with special legitimacy. (Why else would the postal service choose to feature it?) Help students establish that these two images provide different versions of the same event. Because Sandham’s painting benefits from artistic advances in portraying perspective and depth, some students will judge it to be the more accurate of the two. Part of developing historical judgment is resisting what appeals to the eye, and learning that vividness and artistic realism are no substitute for truthfulness.

让学生解释他们所看到的。他们是否发现列克星敦格林上的战斗人员之间在外表、姿势或组织上的差异？学生会注意到一些一致性——一棵树、建筑物、排成一排的军队——以及一些矛盾，例如民兵是逃跑还是坚守阵地。虽然有些学生会尝试创作协调图像的故事，但其他学生会认为一个图像是准确的，而另一个图像则不准确。

Ask students to interpret what they see. Do they detect differences in appearance, posture, or organization between the combatants on Lexington Green? Students will notice some consistencies—a tree, buildings, troops arrayed in a line—as well as some contradictions, such as whether the Minutemen fled or held their ground. While some students will try to create stories that reconcile the images, others will assume that one image is accurate and the other not.

此时，在讨论中引入杜立特版画和桑德姆绘画的日期，提醒学生这些事件发生在 1775 年。帮助他们挖掘这一新信息的重要性。我们离实际事件越远，人类的记忆会发生什么变化？将学生分成小组，检查两份书面主要来源文件（来源 2.4、2.5），目的是确认或重新评估他们在指导性问题上的立场。

At this point, introduce into the discussion the dates of the Doolittle engraving and the Sandham painting, reminding students that the events took place in 1775. Help them to mine the importance of this new information. What happens to human memory the more distant we become from actual events? Organize students into groups to examine the two written primary source documents (Sources 2.4, 2.5) with the aim of confirming or reevaluating their positions on the guiding question.

为了评估学生对视觉文件的阅读能力，请他们考虑美国革命前的另一事件波士顿大屠杀的图像。使用优秀的“数字历史”网站上的 Stephen Mintz 的“探索 2”（参见http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/revolution/revolution_art.cfm），考虑 Paul Revere 著名的 1770 年版画以及 1770 年的石版画，另一幅 1868 年的作品。哪一幅最准确地描述了波士顿大屠杀？视觉准确性和历史准确性有何不同？

To assess students’ reading of visual documents, ask them to consider images from another event in pre-Revolutionary America, the Boston Massacre. Using Stephen Mintz’s “Exploration 2” on the excellent “Digital History” website (see http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/revolution/revolution_art.cfm), consider Paul Revere’s famous 1770 engraving alongside a lithograph from 1770 and another from 1868. Which depicts the Boston Massacre most accurately? How do visual accuracy and historical accuracy differ?

场景 2（1 小时课程）。专注于采购。此场景教会学生优先考虑通常出现在文档末尾的信息，即有关文档编写者及其构成情况的信息。新手通常会跳过此信息或很少注意。另一方面，历史学家会立即放大它，经常将其用作随后分析的框架。

Scenario 2 (1 Hour Lesson). Focus on sourcing. This scenario teaches students to privilege the information that typically appears at the end of a document—information about who wrote a document and the circumstances of its composition. Novices typically skip this information or give it little heed. Historians, on the other hand, zoom in on it immediately, often using it as a framework for their ensuing analysis.

从课本帐户开始（来源2.7）。这段摘录为您提供了一个绝佳的机会来教您的学生如何仔细阅读并关注词语如何传达感觉和情感。让他们在这短短的一段中追踪民兵是如何经历蜕变的，从“四面楚歌的农民”（暗指爱默生的“协和赞美诗”）到“反叛者”（教科书作者为什么要把这个词放在引号中，他们做了什么意味着什么？），只是为了成为“整个新英格兰的爱国者”。请他们思考这本教科书的标题。这里呈现的叙述类型和书名之间有什么关系？诸如此类的问题可以让学生更加敏感地阅读课本，而不仅仅是为了获取课本所提供的信息。它帮助他们将教科书理解为另一种历史来源，

Begin with the textbook account (Source 2.7). This excerpt provides you with an excellent opportunity to teach your students how to read closely and to focus on how words convey feeling and emotion. Ask them to track how the Minutemen undergo a metamorphosis in this short paragraph, moving from “embattled farmers” (an allusion to Emerson’s “Concord Hymn”) to “rebels” (Why would the textbook author put this word in quotes and what do they signify?), only to emerge as “patriots of all New England.” Ask them to think about the title of this textbook. What is the relationship between the kind of narrative presented here and the book’s title? Questions like these sensitize students to reading their textbooks for more than the information they present. It helps them understand their textbook as another kind of historical source, one that also carries a perspective and reflects a particular point of view.

向学生介绍来源 2.4和2.5（根据他们的阅读水平，您可以选择使用改编或原始文件）。通过解释历史学家甚至在研究文档的实质内容之前，就询问有关文档的作者、其创建的环境以及文档的创建与其所描述的事件之间的关系的问题，来提供有关来源的明确说明。典型的问题包括：谁编写（或创建）了这份文档？作者的观点是什么？作者为什么要写这个？这个作者值得信赖吗（例如，作者通过写这篇文章会得到什么或失去什么）？请参阅工具 2.2，其中包含针对本课程中特定文档定制的问题。

Introduce students to Sources 2.4 and 2.5 (depending on their reading level, you can choose to use the adapted or the original documents). Provide explicit instruction about sourcing by explaining that historians, even before they study the substance of a document, ask questions about a document’s author, the circumstances of its creation, and the relationship between a document’s creation and the event it describes. Typical questions include: Who wrote (or created) this document? What is the author’s perspective? Why did the author write this? Is this author trustworthy (e.g., what does the author stand to gain or lose by writing this)? See Tool 2.2 with questions tailored to the particular documents in this lesson.

学生完成此工具后，返回教科书摘录并评估其关于民兵“坚守阵地”的说法。与相反双方撰写的两份文件相比，这一主张如何站得住脚？要了解学生对消息来源的推理如何发展，请他们解释在评估民兵“坚持自己的立场”的主张时哪些消息来源最可信和最不可信。这将帮助您评估学生是否能够获取、关联和证实主要文件。

After students have completed this Tool, return to the textbook excerpt and evaluate its claim that the Minutemen “stood their ground.” How does this claim hold up compared to what two documents, written from opposing sides, say? To see how students’ reasoning about sources develops, ask them to explain which sources are the most and least trustworthy in evaluating the claim that the Minutemen “stood their ground.” This will help you assess whether students can source, contextualize, and corroborate primary documents.

或者，给学生提供两个他们没有见过的来源：Ezra Stiles 文档（来源 2.6）和 Jeremy Lister 的摘录（来源 2.8）。让他们比较这两份文件，重点关注来源信息如何体现可信度概念。Stiles到底是如何得到他的信息的？这些信息到底经过了多少人的手才传到他手上？我们能确定吗？事件列表器记录与实际事件发生之间相隔多长时间？在这些事件发生很久之后，李斯特记录这些事件的动机可能是什么？

Alternately, give students two sources they have not seen: the Ezra Stiles document (Source 2.6) and the excerpt from Jeremy Lister (Source 2.8). Have them compare the two documents, focusing on how sourcing information informs notions of trustworthiness. How, exactly, did Stiles get his information? How many hands did this information pass through before it reached him? Can we know for sure? How much time has passed between the event Lister records and when the actual events happened? What might be Lister’s motivation for recording these events so long after they occurred?

场景 3（2-3 小时课程）。神话如何成为历史？在本课中，引导学生完成场景 1 中描述的分析和讨论，并重点关注场景 2 中描述的采购。然而，这不是要求学生制作一个最终项目，在其中详细说明使来源可信的要素，该场景以一个项目达到高潮，在该项目中，学生探索使神话渗入历史记录的各种力量。

Scenario 3 (2–3 Hour Lesson). How does myth become history? For this lesson, lead students through the analysis and discussion rounds described in Scenario 1, and the focus on sourcing described in Scenario 2. However, rather than asking students to produce a final project in which they detail elements that make a source credible, this scenario culminates in a project in which students explore the various forces that allow myth to creep into the historical record.

在学生讨论他们发现最多和最少的来源之后可靠，请他们指出可靠和不可靠来源的质量。不可靠消息来源的动机是什么？这些消息来源从他们的不准确中得到什么好处？这些不准确的内容吸引了哪些受众？有关列克星敦事件的某些故事是如何流传下来的？哪些版本可能被录制，哪些版本不太可能被录制？提醒他们最初的指导性问题（“列克星敦格林的战斗真的是一场战斗吗？”）以及邮票中描绘的概念，即民兵顽强地对抗英国军队。现在，要求他们完成一个最终项目，例如一篇短文或口头演示，详细说明有助于将神话变成历史的元素和力量。

After students discuss which sources they found most and least reliable, ask them to pinpoint the qualities of reliable and unreliable sources. What were the motives of the unreliable sources? What did these sources stand to gain from their inaccuracies? To which audience did such inaccuracies appeal? How did certain stories about the events at Lexington get passed down? Which versions were likely to be recorded, and which were unlikely? Remind them of the original guiding question (“Was the battle at Lexington Green really a battle?”) and of the notion portrayed in the postage stamp that the Minutemen stood tall against British troops. Now, ask them to complete a final project such as a short essay or oral presentation that details the elements and forces that help turn myth into history.

来源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源：列克星敦之战，1775 年 4 月 19 日，作者：Amos Doolittle，1775 年，公共领域图片，http: //images.nypl.org/ ?id=54426&t=w

Source: The Battle of Lexington, April 19th, 1775, by Amos Doolittle, 1775, public domain image, http://images.nypl.org/?id=54426&t=w

 

 

资料来源：《自由的诞生》，作者：Henry Sandham，1886 年，http://www.mce.k12tn.net/revolutionary_war/lexington.gif

Source: Birth of Liberty by Henry Sandham, 1886, http://www.mce.k12tn.net/revolutionary_war/lexington.gif

 

 

来源：美国邮票，1925 年，http://hubpages.com/hub/US-Postage-Stamps-1925

Source: U.S. Postage Stamp, 1925, http://hubpages.com/hub/US-Postage-Stamps-1925

 

 

资料来源2.4：巴克日记（改编版）

SOURCE 2.4: BARKER DIARY (ADAPTED)

资料来源：1775 年 4 月 19 日的条目，来自英国陆军军官约翰·巴克中尉的日记；RH Dana, Jr.，驻波士顿的英国军官。《大西洋月刊》，39，1877年，389–401。

Source: Entry for April 19, 1775, from the diary of Lieutenant John Barker, an officer in the British army; R. H. Dana, Jr., A British Officer in Boston. The Atlantic Monthly, 39, 1877, 389–401.

（原来的）

(Original)

19日。两点钟，我们开始行军，涉水穿过一条很长的浅滩，一直到我们的中间。走了几英里后，我们带了三四个人去提供情报。在我们路上的一个叫列克星敦的小镇这边大约五英里处，我们听说有大约数百人聚集在一起，打算反对我们并阻止我们继续前进。5点钟我们到达那里，看到有很多人，我相信有2到300人，聚集在镇中心的一个公共场所；我们仍然继续前进，做好了进攻的准备，但并没有打算攻击他们。但当我们接近他们时，他们开了一两枪，我们的人在没有任何命令的情况下冲向他们，开枪把他们打跑。其中有几个人被杀了，我们不知道有多少人，因为他们被困在墙后和树林里；我们有一名第十轻步兵团的士兵受伤，没有其他人受伤。然后我们在公共地列队，但遇到了一些困难，这些人太狂野了，他们听不到任何命令。我们在那里等了相当长的时间，最后继续前往康科德。

19th. At 2 o’clock we began our march by wading through a very long ford up to our middles; after going a few miles we took three or four people who were going off to give intelligence; about five miles on this side of a town called Lexington, which lay in our road, we heard there were some hundreds of people collected together intending to oppose us and stop our going on; at 5 o’clock we arrived there and saw a number of people, I believe between 2 and 300, formed on a common in the middle of the town; we still continued advancing, keeping prepared against an attack th’o without intending to attack them; but on our coming near them they fired one or two shots, upon which our men without any orders, rushed in upon them, fired and put them to flight; several of them were killed, we cou’d not tell how many, because they were got behind walls and into the woods; We had a man of the 10th light Infantry wounded, nobody else hurt. We then formed on the Common but with some difficulty, the men were so wild they cou’d hear no orders; we waited a considerable time there, and at length proceeded on our way to Concord.

 

 

资料来源2.5：民兵的证词（经过修改）

SOURCE 2.5: MINUTEMEN’S DEPOSITIONS (ADAPTED)

资料来源：列克星敦，1775 年 4 月 25 日，Nathaniel Mulliken、Philip Russell，[和 32 名男子][4 月 25 日在三名太平绅士面前由 34 名民兵正式宣誓就职]；CC·索特尔。1775 年四月十九日：第一手资料集（马萨诸塞州林肯：萨默塞特的索特尔，1968 年）。

Source: Lexington, April 25, 1775, Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, [and the 32 men] [Duly sworn to by 34 minutemen on April 25 before three justices of the peace]; C. C. Sawtell. The Nineteeth of April, 1775: A Collection of First Hand Accounts (Lincoln, MA: Sawtells of Somerset, 1968).

（原来的）

(Original)

我们纳撒尼尔·马利肯、菲利普·拉塞尔（后面是 1775 年 4 月 19 日列克星敦格林出现的其他 32 名男子的名字）……所有达到法定年龄的米德尔塞克斯郡列克星敦居民……作证并声明，四月十九号的那一刻，大约凌晨一两点，我们得知……一队常客正从波士顿向康科德进发……我们很震惊，在我们连队的游行地点相遇，被我们的部队解散了。约翰·帕克上尉，目前接到命令，准备在鼓声响起时参加，我们进一步作证并声明，早上五点左右，听到我们的鼓声，我们向游行出发，很快发现一大群部队正在向我们行进，我们连的一些人正在向游行队伍走来，还有一些人已经到达了，这时，连队开始散去，而我们背对着部队，遭到他们的射击，我们的一些人立即死伤，但我们连里没有人开枪。据我们所知，他们在向我们开火之前就已经是常客了，他们继续开火，直到我们全部逃跑。

We Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, (Followed by the names of 32 other men present on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775) … all of lawful age, and inhabitants of Lexington, in the County of Middlesex … do testify and declare, that on the nineteenth of April instant, about one or two o’clock in the morning, being informed that … a body of regulars were marching from Boston towards Concord … we were alarmed and having met at the place of our company’s parade, were dismissed by our Captain, John Parker, for the present with orders to be ready to attend at the beat of the drum, we further testify and declare, that about five o’clock in the morning, hearing our drum beat, we proceeded towards the parade and soon found that a large body of troops were marching towards us, some of our company were coming up to the parade, and others had reached it, at which time, the company began to disperse, whilst our backs were turned on the troops, we were fired on by them, and a number of our men were instantly killed and wounded, not a gun was fired by any person in our company on the regulars to our knowledge before they fired on us, and they continued firing until we had all made our escape.

 

 

资料来源2.6：STILES信件（已修改）

SOURCE 2.6: STILES LETTER (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘自耶鲁大学校长埃兹拉·斯蒂尔斯 (Ezra Stiles) 的日记，记录于 1775 年 8 月 21 日；见 FB Dexter 主编，《以斯拉·斯蒂尔斯的文学日记》（纽约：查尔斯·斯克里布纳，1901 年）。

Source: From the diary of Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, entry for August 21, 1775; In F. B. Dexter, ed., The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles (New York: Charles Scribner, 1901).

（原来的）

(Original)

在描述射击的开始时存在一定的滑动和不确定性。皮特凯恩少校是一个好人，但他一直坚持到他去世的那天，殖民者首先开火……。他并没有说他首先看到殖民者开火。如果他这么说，我会相信他，因为他是一个正直和荣誉的人。他明确表示他没有看到谁先开枪；但相信农民开始了。他的叙述是这样的——他骑马冲向他们，命令他们散开；他们没有立即行动，他转身命令他的部队撤出，包围他们并解除他们的武装。当他转身时，他看到墙后一个农民手里拿着一把枪，昙花一现，没有走火。; 立刻或很快，两三枪响了，他发现他的马受伤了，他附近的一个人也受伤了。他没有看到这些枪，但相信它们不可能来自他自己的人民，因此毫不怀疑，因此断言它们来自我们的人民；他们就这样开始了进攻。国王军队的冲动使得一场混乱的、不受指挥的但普遍的火灾发生，皮特凯恩无法阻止。尽管他认真地向下击打他的手杖或剑，作为克制或停止射击的信号。皮特凯恩少校亲自向普罗维登斯的布朗先生讲述了这一情况，布朗先生在战斗后几天被抓获面粉并运往波士顿。塞申斯州长告诉我的。

There is a certain sliding over and indeterminateness in describing the beginning of the firing. Major Pitcairn, who was a good man in a bad cause, insisted upon it to the day of his death, that the colonists fired first…. He does not say that he saw the colonists fire first. Had he said it, I would have believed him, being a man of integrity and honor. He expressly says he did not see who fired first; and yet believed the peasants began. His account is this—that riding up to them he ordered them to disperse; which they not doing instantly, he turned about to order his troops so to draw out as to surround and disarm them. As he turned, he saw a gun in a peasant’s hand from behind a wall, flash in the pan without going off; and instantly or very soon two or three guns went off by which he found his horse wounded and also a man near him wounded. These guns he did not see, but believing they could not come from his own people, doubted not and so asserted that they came from our people; and that thus they began the attack. The impetuosity of the King’s Troops were such that a promiscuous, uncommanded but general fire took place, which Pitcairn could not prevent; though he struck his staff or sword downwards with all earnestness as a signal to forbear or cease firing. This account Major Pitcairn himself gave Mr. Brown of Providence who was seized with flour and carried to Boston a few days after the battle; and Gov. Sessions told it to me.

 

 

资料来源2.7：《列克星敦》教科书版本

SOURCE 2.7: TEXTBOOK VERSION OF LEXINGTON

资料来源：来自高中教科书：Samuel Steinberg，《美国：自由人民的故事》（波士顿：Allyn 和 Bacon，1963 年）。

Source: From a high school textbook: Samuel Steinberg, The United States: Story of a Free People (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1963).

 

 

资料来源2.8：列表者的帐户

SOURCE 2.8: LISTER’S ACCOUNT

资料来源：少尉杰里米·利斯特 (Jeremy Lister)，列克星敦最年轻的英国军官，写于 1782 年的个人叙述。重印于 J.利斯特 (J. Lister)，《协和之战》 (Concord Fight )（马萨诸塞州剑桥：哈佛大学出版社，1931 年）。

Source: Ensign Jeremy Lister, youngest of the British officers at Lexington, in a personal narrative written in 1782. Reprinted in J. Lister, Concord Fight (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931).

 

 

工具2.1：图像分析工作表_

TOOL 2.1: IMAGE ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

---

说明：查看列克星敦格林战役的三幅图像（来源2.1、2.2、2.3 ）并考虑这些问题。

Directions: Look at the three images of the Battle at Lexington Green (Sources 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) and consider these questions.

工具2.2：采购工作表

TOOL 2.2: SOURCING WORKSHEET

---

请参阅约翰·巴克 (John Barker) 的日记以及纳撒尼尔·马利肯 (Nathaniel Mulliken) 和其他民兵的证词（来源 2.4和2.5）。

Refer to the diary entry of John Barker and the deposition of Nathaniel Mulliken and the other Minutemen (Sources 2.4 and 2.5).

1. 我们对这些文档的作者了解多少？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. What do we know about the author(s) of each of these documents?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 这些信息如何影响我们是否相信作者？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. How does this information influence whether or not we believe the authors?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 解释这两个文件的体裁之间的差异：日记与宣誓证词有何不同？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Explain the difference between the genres of these two documents: How is a diary different from a sworn deposition?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 关于巴克的日记，请提供一个你可能信任它的理由。您可能不信任它的原因之一是什么？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
8. Regarding Barker’s diary, provide one reason that you might trust it. What is one reason you might distrust it?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
9. 巴克的日记是在哪一天写的？从巴克写日记到他描述的事件经过了多长时间？有什么办法可以绝对确定吗？这篇文章可能是几天后写的吗？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
10. On what day was Barker’s diary entry written? How much time elapsed between Barker writing in his diary and the event he describes? Is there any way to be absolutely sure? Could this entry have been written days later?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
11. 关于马利肯的证词，请提供一个您可能信任它的理由。您可能不信任它的原因之一是什么？
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
12. Regarding Mulliken’s deposition, provide one reason that you might trust it. What is one reason you might distrust it?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
13. 知道这份证词已发送给议会中的殖民地代表本杰明·富兰克林，您如何判断其可信度？
14. How does knowing that this deposition was sent to the colonial representative in Parliament, Benjamin Franklin, inform your judgment of its trustworthiness?

建议资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.nps.gov/mima

http://www.nps.gov/mima

该国家公园管理局页面提供了“民兵”国家历史公园的各种资源，包括历史概述、照片和多媒体，以及课程材料和教师专业发展机会。

This National Park Service page offers a variety of resources from “Minute Man” National Historical Park, including a historical overview, photographs and multimedia, and curricular materials and professional development opportunities for teachers.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/apr19.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/apr19.html

该页面由美国国会图书馆运营，提供丰富的主要来源材料，包括地图、个人文件以及列克星敦格林冲突发生后拍摄的原始证词。

This page, run by the Library of Congress, offers rich primary source material, including access to maps, personal papers, and the original depositions taken after the conflict on Lexington Green took place.

http://www.lexingtonhistory.org/

http://www.lexingtonhistory.org/

该网站由列克星敦历史学会运营，提供列克星敦历史建筑的照片和描述，例如巴克曼酒馆（Buckman Tavern），它最著名的是民兵总部。

This site is run by the Lexington Historical Society and offers photographs and descriptions of historic buildings in Lexington such as Buckman Tavern, best known as the headquarters of the Minutemen.

http://www.masshist.org/revolution/lexington.php

http://www.masshist.org/revolution/lexington.php

该网站由马萨诸塞州历史学会维护，提供列克星敦和康科德事件的历史概述、支持主要文件以及重点关注美国革命爆发的课程计划。

This site, maintained by the Massachusetts Historical Society, features a historical overview of the events at Lexington and Concord, supporting primary documents, and lesson plans focusing on the onset of the American Revolution.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=74

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=74

该页面与阿什布鲁克中心合作创建，包含许多与美国革命爆发相关的主要来源文件，包括托马斯·盖奇将军和约翰·皮特凯恩少校的文件。

This page, created in partnership with the Ashbrook Center, features a number of primary source documents related to the onset of the American Revolution, including the documents of General Thomas Gage and Major John Pitcairn.

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=679#01

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=679#01

该网站由国家人文基金会、威瑞森基金会和国家人文信托基金会合作创建，提供有关美国北方革命的课程。建议的第一项活动侧重于“世界各地听到的声音”，并利用了许多主要来源。

This site, created by a partnership among the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Verizon Foundation, and the National Trust for the Humanities, features a lesson on the American Revolution in the North. The first of the suggested activities focuses on “The Shot Heard ’Round the World” and utilizes a number of primary sources.

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/why/

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/why/

此页面位于历史思维问题网站上，使用列克星敦格林战役的案例来展示和解释历史阅读和思维，并包括历史学家在分析主要来源文献时大声思考。

This page, featured on the Historical Thinking Matters website, uses the case of the battle at Lexington Green to show and explain historical reading and thinking, and includes historians thinking out loud as they analyze primary source documents.

如今，这些话听起来很无礼，是过去时代的遗物，很少有人哀悼或浪漫化。他们宣扬的态度是对美国理想的憎恶，许多读者会惊讶地发现这些话是亚伯拉罕·林肯说的。写下《解放奴隶宣言》和葛底斯堡激动人心的话语的人怎么可能对那些让我们现代人如此厌恶的传达种族优越感的话语负责呢？

Today these words sound offensive, a relic of bygone times that few mourn or romanticize. They broadcast an attitude that is anathema to American ideals, and many readers will be shocked to learn that they were uttered by Abraham Lincoln. How could the man who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and the stirring words at Gettysburg be responsible for words that convey a racial superiority so distasteful to our modern ears?

这些话与美国人对亚伯拉罕·林肯作为“伟大的解放者”的理解背道而驰。它们促使读者接受林肯的另一个愿景：“白人至上主义者”。事实上，《Ebony》杂志编辑小莱罗内·贝内特 (Lerone Bennett, Jr.) 在 1968 年发表了一篇著名文章，提出了这一观点：“安倍·林肯是白人至上主义者吗？” ²贝内特声称，美国人的林肯是一个自我感觉良好的创造物，林肯实际上是一位白人至上主义者，尽管是出于善意。他是一位保守派政客，只对政治需要做出反应，并通过种族主义笑话展现自己的真面目。

These words fly in the face of Americans’ understanding of Abraham Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator.” They prompt readers to embrace another vision of Lincoln: “White Supremacist.” In fact, Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. made that very call in 1968 with a famous article asking, “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?”² Bennett claimed that Americans’ Lincoln was a feel-good creation, and that Lincoln was actually a White supremacist, albeit a well-intentioned one. He was a conservative politician who responded only to political necessity, and showed his true colors through racist jokes.

贝内特的文章促使学者们正视林肯的种族主义问题。随后进行了更深入、更广泛的对话，著名历史学家重新审视并认真思考林肯对奴隶制和种族的看法问题。历史学家想知道这个悖论（林肯作为《解放黑人奴隶宣言》的作者和白人至上的信徒）是否是在事后一个多世纪后对这个人进行判断的问题，或者林肯在他的同时代人看来是否也显得矛盾。这些话对于 1858 年听到的人来说意味着什么？

Bennett’s article prompted scholars to confront the question of Lincoln’s racism. A deeper and more extended conversation ensued, with eminent historians revisiting and seriously considering the question of Lincoln’s views on slavery and race. Historians wondered if this paradox (Lincoln as author of the Emancipation Proclamation and as believer in White supremacy) was a matter of judging the man more than a century after the fact, or whether Lincoln also appeared paradoxical to his contemporaries. What did these words mean to those who heard them in 1858?

历史学家努力在林肯所处的时代背景下理解他的观点，这需要建立联系。林肯并不是生活在真空中。他的言论和行动与他所处的世界的具体情况深深地交织在一起。上下文一词源自拉丁语，意思是“编织在一起”。历史情境化是指努力理解历史现象（言论、人物、事件），因为它们存在于原来的世界中，以便以它们自己的方式而不是通过现代视角来理解它们。

Historians worked to understand Lincoln’s views in the context of his own time, and this required making connections. Lincoln did not live in a vacuum; his speeches and actions were deeply intertwined with the particulars of his world. The word context has Latin roots that mean “to weave together.” Contextualizing in history is about working to understand historical phenomena—speeches, people, events—as they existed in their original worlds in order to understand them on their own terms rather than through a modern lens.

我们无法将本章开头的话与说出这些话的场合（与斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯（Stephen A. Douglas）就激烈竞争的参议员席位进行辩论）分开。这场辩论的地点（伊利诺伊州渥太华，反黑人情绪的温床）；听到辩论的人类型（主要支持道格拉斯，怀疑林肯）；事实上，林肯和道格拉斯都不是以先知或道德家的身份向观众讲话，而是以争取选票的候选人的身份。我们也不能忽视道格拉斯所说的话引发了这种反应，或者林肯在本章开头摘录之后所说的话。情境化的行为需要考虑各种各样的因素，从当今的意识形态到特定的短语和句子序列。但在所有情况下，

We cannot separate the words that began this chapter from the occasion on which they were uttered (a debate with Stephen A. Douglas for a fiercely contested senatorial seat); the location of this debate (Ottawa, Illinois, a hotbed of anti-Black sentiment); the kinds of people who heard the debate (largely supportive of Douglas and suspicious of Lincoln); and the fact that both Lincoln and Douglas addressed their audience not as prophets or moralists but as candidates courting votes. Nor can we ignore what Douglas said to spark this response, or the words Lincoln uttered that immediately follow the excerpt at the start of this chapter. The act of contextualizing requires considering a wide-ranging variety of factors, from the ideologies of the day to a particular sequence of phrases and sentences. But in all cases, it demands that historical artifacts and sources be recognized as human constructions that existed within a particular social world, and as such, cannot be considered as free-floating evidence that speaks for itself.

林肯是种族主义者吗？分析问题

Was Lincoln a Racist? Analyzing the Question

林肯是否是一名种族主义者的问题并不是一个普通的问题。它将美国最受欢迎的偶像之一与其最应受谴责的遗产和思想之一联系起来。光是这个问题就能引起热烈的回应，而令人信服地回答它既不容易也不容易。

The question of whether Lincoln was a racist is no ordinary one. It links one of America’s favorite icons with one of its most reprehensible legacies and ideas. The question alone can elicit passionate responses, and answering it convincingly is neither easy nor quick.

首先，揭示一个人的真诚信念是很困难的。即使在最好的情况下，这对历史学家来说也不是一件容易的事——如何进入一个人的思想？况且，谁一生一世不会改变自己的想法呢？一年表达某件事是否意味着说话者下一年就会相信它？然后是一致性问题。一个人是全有还是全无——种族主义者还是平等主义者？我们能否辨别一个人的观点何时是绝对的，何时这些观点可能是混合的、试探性的或不确定的？

First there is the difficulty of uncovering a person’s sincere beliefs. Even in the best cases, this is not an easy task for the historian—how do you get inside a man’s mind? Moreover, who does not change his or her mind over a lifetime? Does expressing something one year mean that the speaker believes it the next? And then there is the matter of consistency. Is a man all or nothing—racist or egalitarian? Can we discern when a man is absolute in his views and when those views may be mixed, tentative, or uncertain?

关于“种族主义”一词的问题也出现了，这个词在林肯时代并不存在。³它的使用是否不合时宜？我们是否以非历史的方式将现代观念强加于过去的情况？种族主义与当今的美国以及理解我们的过去有着巨大的关系。但用当今的措辞来表述这个问题会引发历史上的一个中心紧张局势：虽然今天的担忧可能会促使历史调查，但它们不应该淹没或扭曲过去的现实。

Questions also arise about the term “racist,” a word that didn’t exist in Lincoln’s time.³ Is its use anachronistic? Are we imposing modern ideas on past situations in an ahistorical way? Racism has enormous relevance to today’s America and to understanding our past. But phrasing the question in present-day terms raises a central tension in history: While today’s concerns may prompt historical investigations, they should not swamp or distort the realities of the past.

尽管如此，即使考虑到这些限制，历史学家仍在追寻这个问题。⁴为了辨别含义并揭示林肯的观点，他们努力在原始上下文中分析他的话。

Still, even given these limitations, historians have pursued the question.⁴ And to discern meaning and uncover Lincoln’s views, they strive to analyze his words within their original context.

来源

The Sources

哪些来源阐明了林肯的种族观点？他出示了大量文件证据。他不断写作并留下信件、笔记和备忘录、演讲、法律论证、政策声明以及其中许多内容的修订版和草案。⁵历史学家道格拉斯·威尔逊 (Douglas Wilson) 解释说，“[林肯]对他担任总统期间的几乎每一个重要发展以及许多不那么重要的发展都做出了一些写作的回应。” ⁶

What sources illuminate Lincoln’s views on race? He produced a huge cache of documentary evidence. He wrote constantly and left behind letters, notes and memos, speeches, legal arguments, policy statements, and revisions and drafts of many of these.⁵ Historian Douglas Wilson explained that “[Lincoln] responded to almost every important development during his presidency, and to many that were not so important, with some act of writing.”⁶

然后是令人回忆的见证。林肯去世后，他超过 15 年的法律合伙人威廉·赫恩登 (William Herndon) 收集了许多认识他的人的故事。然后他写了一本关于他的前合伙人的传记。历史学家对这部作品持怀疑态度，因为他与林肯保持着冷静的个人关系，以及撰写有关被杀总统的文章所带来的经济机会。尽管如此，赫恩登收集的故事增加了有关林肯的证据。历史学家还可以查看当时所有可用的原始材料来了解林肯（例如报纸、其他人的论文、法律摘要和判决）。

Then there is the reminiscent testimony. After Lincoln’s death, William Herndon, his law partner for more than 15 years, collected stories from many who knew him. He then wrote a biography of his former partner. Historians are skeptical of this work, given the cool personal relationship he maintained with Lincoln, as well as the financial opportunities bound up with writing about the slain president. Nevertheless, the stories Herndon collected add to the evidence about Lincoln. Historians can also look at all the source material available from the time to understand Lincoln (e.g., newspapers, other people’s papers, legal briefs and decisions).

即使有这么多的主要资料来源，在种族问题上也很难确定林肯的情况。历史学家不得不将神话般的林肯与这个人区分开来。林肯传记作家大卫·赫伯特·唐纳德将他描述为一位多才多艺的偶像，对于不同的群体来说，“他是一名共产主义者……也是一名素食主义者、社会主义者、禁酒主义者、绿背主义者和现在联盟的支持者。” ⁷由于林肯已成为美国理想的“中心象征”，历史学家必须努力将真正的林肯与象征性的林肯区分开来。⁸他们从事这项工作已有数十年，并产生了大量学术成果。

Even with this large pool of primary sources, it is hard to pin down Lincoln when it comes to race. Historians have had to disentangle the mythic Lincoln from the man. Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald described him as a versatile icon, that for different groups “he was a Communist … also a vegetarian, a socialist, a prohibitionist, a greenbacker, and a proponent of Union Now.”⁷ Because Lincoln has become the “central symbol” of American ideals, historians have to work to distinguish the real Lincoln from the symbolic.⁸ They have been doing this work for decades and have produced a vast body of scholarship.

尽管如此，“真正的”林肯仍然难以捉摸。被历史学家描述为“令人费解的混合物”，被同时代人描述为“沉默寡言”和“神秘莫测”，林肯万神殿中一本广受好评的书被称为《无人知晓的林肯》是有充分理由的。⁹作者理查德·卡伦特 (Richard Current) 将林肯文献中的某些主题描述为有争议的，并解释说“证据相互矛盾，同样公正和消息灵通的学生对其解释存在分歧。” ¹⁰林肯对种族和奴隶制的看法体现了一个棘手的话题。

Still, the “real” Lincoln remains elusive. Described as a “puzzling mixture” by historians, “reticent” and “secretive” by his contemporaries, it is with good reason that an acclaimed book in the Lincoln pantheon is called The Lincoln Nobody Knows.⁹ Author Richard Current described certain topics in the Lincoln literature as controversial, explaining that the “evidence is tangled in contradictions, and equally fair-minded and well-informed students disagree in their interpretation of it.”¹⁰ Lincoln’s views on race and slavery exemplify a tangled topic.

我们在下面讨论对林肯观点研究至关重要的四个来源，以及第五个可以帮助正确理解林肯言论的来源。这些资料来源跨越 1841 年至 1863 年，这是美国历史上发生重大变化的时期。内战前的三十年见证了纳特·特纳的叛乱，威廉·劳埃德·加里森的报纸《解放者》诞生、旨在解决这些领土上奴隶制问题的立法、剥夺黑人公民身份的德雷德·斯科特决定，以及从哈珀斯费里到“血腥堪萨斯”骚乱的暴力行为。不同团体采取了极端立场：一方面，废奴主义者呼吁立即结束奴隶制；另一方面，主张废除奴隶制。另一方面，支持奴隶制的派系称赞奴隶制是受圣经认可的受祝福的制度。正是在这种背景下，必须考虑这些来源。

We discuss below four sources that are central to the study of Lincoln’s views, and a fifth that can help put Lincoln’s words in perspective. These sources span the period 1841–1863, a time of significant change in American history. The three decades preceding the Civil War saw Nat Turner’s Rebellion, the birth of William Lloyd Garrison’s newspaper The Liberator, legislative acts meant to settle the question of slavery in the territories, the Dred Scott decision denying Blacks citizenship, and acts of violence from Harpers Ferry to the riots of “Bloody Kansas.” Different groups adopted extreme positions: On the one hand, the abolitionists called for an immediate end to slavery; on the other, pro-slavery factions praised slavery as a blessed institution sanctioned by the Bible. It is against this backdrop that these sources must be considered.

林肯-道格拉斯辩论。1858 年的林肯-道格拉斯辩论是政治史上最著名的事件之一。伊利诺伊州议员林肯向现任美国参议员斯蒂芬·道格拉斯发起一系列辩论。道格拉斯同意在伊利诺伊州的七个城镇与林肯进行辩论。¹¹辩论是一场精心设计的活动，配有游行乐队、野餐、烟花和横幅——这是 19 世纪人群的主要娱乐来源。每场辩论都遵循相同的形式：三个小时激动人心的演讲，不时响起人群的欢呼、笑声、嘲笑和掌声。¹²出席的记者报道的报道刊登在全国各地的报纸上，辩论吸引了全国观众。

Lincoln-Douglas Debates. The 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates are one of the most famous events in political history. Lincoln, an Illinois state legislator, challenged incumbent U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas to a series of debates. Douglas agreed to debate Lincoln in seven Illinois towns.¹¹ The debates were elaborate events, complete with marching bands, picnics, fireworks, and banners—a major source of entertainment for the 19th-century crowds. Each debate followed the same format: three hours of rousing oratory punctuated by the crowd’s cheers, laughter, jeers, and applause.¹² The reporters in attendance filed stories that were printed in newspapers around the country, and the debates drew a national audience.

虽然林肯与道格拉斯的辩论通常被纳入历史教科书，但他们的叙述主要集中在“外表和声音”，很少关注所说的话或所拥护的想法。¹³正在争论的重大问题是什么？

While the Lincoln-Douglas debates are routinely included in history textbooks, their accounts focus on “appearances and voices,” with little if any attention paid to the words spoken or the ideas espoused.¹³ What were the great issues being debated?

奴隶制向西方领土的扩张是争论的核心。1850 年代，宣布北纬 36°30 英寸以北的领土永远禁止奴隶制的《密苏里妥协案》被废除。这一变革的缔造者道格拉斯支持这些领土上的人民主权，使西方定居者能够批准在他们的地区实行奴隶制。新领土可以举行选举来确立其奴隶制或自由土地的地位。1854 年的《堪萨斯-内布拉斯加州法案》加剧了西部扩张和奴隶制的紧张局势，其中最暴力的表现是“流血的堪萨斯”。在这种背景下，历史学家一致认为 1850 年代是一个充满恶毒种族主义的时代，当时许多地方都否认黑皮肤人的人性。

The expansion of slavery into the Western territories was at the heart of the debates. In the 1850s, the Missouri Compromise, which declared territories north of the 36°30” latitude forever off limits to slavery, was repealed. Douglas, the architect of this change, supported popular sovereignty in the territories, making it possible for Western settlers to approve slavery in their region. New territories could hold elections to establish their status as slaveholding or free soil. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 escalated tensions over westward expansion and slavery, the most violent manifestation being “Bleeding Kansas.” Given this backdrop, historians agree that the 1850s was a time of virulent racism, when the very humanity of dark-skinned people was denied in many quarters.

“与白人平等。” 第一份文件（来源 3.1）摘自 1858 年 8 月 21 日在伊利诺伊州渥太华举行的第一次辩论，开头是道格拉斯声称林肯（和“黑人共和党”）支持黑人公民身份和权利，包括黑人的权利。投票并在陪审团和民选职位中任职。道格拉斯确立了自己的立场，即“赞成将公民身份限制在白人身上”，并反对“任何形式的”黑人公民身份。他接着声称林肯（以及废奴主义者）相信“黑人生来平等”并且“全能的上帝赋予了平等”。

“The Equal of the White Man.” The first document (Source 3.1), an excerpt from the first debate in Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858, begins with Douglas’s claim that Lincoln (and the “Black Republican party”) supported Black citizenship and rights, including the right to vote and serve on juries and in elected office. Douglas established his own position as being “in favor of confining citizenship to white men,” and opposed to Negro citizenship “in any and every form.” He went on to claim that Lincoln (alongside the abolitionists) believed that the “Negro was born his equal” and was “endowed with equality by the Almighty.”

道格拉斯在现代读者熟悉的背景下——政治竞选——在自己和他的挑战者之间建立了对比。尽管一场长达 3 小时的 19 世纪辩论对我们来说可能有点太多了，但我们可以体会到竞选演讲以及候选人为了赢得观众认可而调整自己的言辞。

Douglas set up a contrast between himself and his challenger in what is a familiar context to the modern reader: the political campaign. Although a 3-hour 19th-century debate may seem a bit much to us, we can relate to the campaign stump speech and candidates who calibrate their words to win audience approval.

历史学家埃里克·福纳 (Eric Foner) 称共和党亲黑人的指控是 1850 年代最常用的“民主党政治武器库中的武器”。¹⁴特别是在西方，民主党押注将共和党与“黑人平等”联系起来将使民主党赢得选举。政治光谱各派人士都将倡导黑人平等视为政治自杀：没有足够的选民支持这一纲领。更常见的是对黑人的仇恨和恐惧，这在全国所有地区都是如此，而不仅仅是在蓄奴的南方。

Historian Eric Foner called charges that the Republicans were pro-Negro the 1850s’ most utilized “weapon in the Democrats’ political arsenal.”¹⁴ Especially in the West, the Democratic Party bet that linking the Republicans to “Negro equality” would win the Democrats the election. People on all sides of the political spectrum saw advocacy of Negro equality as political suicide: Not enough voters supported this platform. More common were feelings of hate and fear toward Blacks, and this held true in all regions of the country, not just in the slaveholding South.

这是一个“种族偏见几乎普遍存在”的时代，四个“自由”州甚至不允许黑人进入其领土。¹⁵表示支持禁止奴隶制，甚至完全废除奴隶制，并不等于倡导黑人权利，更不用说平等了。白人工人不想与奴隶劳动竞争，也不想与自由黑人竞争可用的工作。让西方摆脱奴隶制更多的是与 1840 年代自由土地党的政治纲领有关，而不是与反奴隶制的热情有关。自由土壤者强调努力工作和公平竞争是白人经济自我改善的关键。保持西部地区没有奴隶劳动将确保这种“公平”竞争，并实现这片土地的承诺，坚持不懈和能力得到回报。简而言之，在这些领土上投票反对奴隶制的人们往往是出于自身利益，而不是出于对奴隶制的道德疑虑。

This was an era when “racial prejudice was all but universal” and four “free” states wouldn’t even let Negroes into their territory.¹⁵ Evincing support for the prohibition of slavery, or even abolishing it altogether, did not equate to advocating Negro rights, let alone equality. White workers did not want to compete with slave labor nor compete with free Blacks for available jobs. Keeping the West free of slaves had more to do with the Free Soil Party’s political platform in the 1840s than it did with anti-slavery passion. Free Soilers emphasized hard work and fair competition as the key to economic self-improvement for White men. Keeping the Western territories free of slave labor would ensure this “fair” competition, and fulfill the promise of a land where perseverance and ability paid off. In short, the people who voted down slavery in the territories often did so based on self-interest, rather than moral qualms about slavery.

在第一份文件中，我们听到斯蒂芬·道格拉斯对这种心态的关注。他的话让我们感到震惊和不安。很难想象这样一个世界：“我赞成将公民身份限制在白人、欧洲出生和血统的男性身上，而不是将公民身份授予黑人、印第安人和其他劣等种族”这句话能获得选票。但我们不能忘记参议院选举的结果。道格拉斯赢了。

In the first document, we hear Stephen Douglas’s attention to this mindset. His words jar and upset us. It is hard to imagine a world in which the words “I am in favor of confining citizenship to White men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon Negroes, Indians and other inferior races” get votes. But we can’t forget the outcome of the Senate election. Douglas won.

我们听到林肯在他的答复中考虑了这种意识形态气候和背景（来源 3.2）。他小心翼翼地与道格拉斯无情地抛弃在他角落里的“小废奴演说家”保持距离，并表示他不会干涉已经存在的奴隶制。林肯关注的是奴隶制向西扩张的问题。这使得任何反对扩大奴隶制的选民，无论出于何种原因，都可以支持林肯。正是这样的举动促使历史学家和古典学家加里·威尔斯称赞林肯“以政治上可以管理的方式定义了奴隶制问题”。¹⁶林肯以对这一成就至关重要的方式对他的言论进行了区分和限定。

We hear Lincoln considering this ideological climate, this context, in his reply (Source 3.2). He carefully distanced himself from the “little abolition orators” whom Douglas ungraciously dumped in his corner, and stated that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed. Lincoln focused on the question of slavery’s westward expansion. This allowed any voter against expansion of slavery, regardless of the reason, to give his support to Lincoln. It is moves like this one that prompted historian and classicist Garry Wills to credit Lincoln with “defining the issue of slavery in politically manageable terms.”¹⁶ Lincoln made distinctions and qualified his statements in ways critical to that accomplishment.

自然权利和政治权利。最初，林肯否认有任何在种族之间引入政治和社会平等的愿望，这一信息一定让他的听众松了口气并赢得了掌声。他承认种族之间存在身体差异，并认为这些差异加大了黑人和白人可以享有“完美平等”的社会的可能性。在这里，他表示自己同意道格拉斯的观点，即考虑到这种可能性，白人将拥有优势地位。但林肯言论的偶然性与道格拉斯的言论形成鲜明对比。

Natural Rights and Political Rights. Initially, Lincoln denied any desire to introduce political and social equality between the races, a message that must have drawn relief and applause from his audience. He acknowledged physical differences between the races and credited these with stacking the odds against a society where Blacks and Whites could share “perfect equality.” Here he marked himself in agreement with Douglas that, given such odds, the White population would have the superior position. But the contingency of Lincoln’s remarks stands in contrast to Douglas’s.

林肯在平等问题上采取了不同的方针，远离社会和政治平等，转向自然权利和享受劳动成果的权利。他断言，在这些方面，黑人“与白人一样……享有同样的权利”。社会、政治、自然、经济——所有这些不同种类的权利。林肯为何做出这些区分？

Lincoln took a different tack on the question of equality, away from social and political equality, toward natural rights and the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor. In these, he asserted, the Negro is “as much entitled … as the White man.” Social, political, natural, economic—all these different kinds of rights. Why did Lincoln make these distinctions?

当今的反黑人意识形态部分回答了这个问题。林肯制定了一种关注黑人奴隶人性的意识形态，与那些将奴隶视为非人类的人形成鲜明对比。在林肯的法律实践中，他称“抓住案件的核心问题”疙瘩。” 1858 年林肯对黑人所表明的立场的“核心”是，作为人类，他们享有《独立宣言》中规定的自然权利。

The anti-Black ideology of the day partly answers this question. Lincoln crafted an ideology that focused on the humanity of the Black slave, in contrast to those who saw slaves as subhuman. In Lincoln’s law practice he called getting at the core issue in a case “getting at the nub.” The “nub” of Lincoln’s stated position on Blacks in 1858 was that as human beings, they were due natural rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

林肯对各种平等的区分伴随着对冲和谨慎的语言。虽然他确实承认两组之间存在身体差异，但他在其他比较中却模棱两可。只是“也许”存在道德或智力禀赋上的差异。即使提出两个种族在道德和智力上同等的可能性，也会完全违背他那个时代的盛行风气。

Lincoln’s distinctions between kinds of equality are accompanied by hedging and careful language. While he does admit a physical difference between the two groups, he equivocates in his other comparisons. There is only “perhaps” a difference in moral or intellectual endowment. Even raising the possibility that the two races were morally and intellectually equivalent would go squarely against the prevailing winds of his day.

对于现代人来说，林肯的杰出地位和资历可能显得微不足道，甚至具有欺骗性，这是一个为了击败对手而愿意说出任何话的政客的运作方式。但考虑到他的世界，他公开表达的想法比大多数其他白人的想法更加进步（废奴主义者是一个重要的例外）。林肯在这些辩论中阐述的观点将团结共和党。¹⁷正如历史学家埃里克·福纳 (Eric Foner) 指出的那样，共和党人

Lincoln’s distinctions and qualifications might seem trivial and even deceptive to the modern ear, the workings of a politico willing to say whatever was needed to best his opponent. But given his world, his publicly expressed ideas were more progressive than those of most other Whites (abolitionists being the significant exception). The views that Lincoln articulated in these debates would unify the Republican party.¹⁷ As historian Eric Foner notes, the Republicans

林肯的立场显然不像他那个时代的废奴主义那么激进，但它对奴隶共同人性的关注是不容谈判的，如果要接受任何最终的解放，这也是逻辑上的必然。林肯始终关注公众舆论和现行法律，在平等立场上既没有逼得太紧，也没有让步太多。相反，他采取了一条允许各种反奴隶制选民加入他的道路。他可能在 1858 年的参议院选举中落败，但他的谨慎行事让他在 1860 年当选总统。

Lincoln’s stance was obviously not as radical as the abolitionism of his day, but its focus on the shared humanity of the slave was non-negotiable and a logical necessity if any eventual emancipation were to be accepted. Always attentive to public opinion and existing law, Lincoln neither pushed too hard nor conceded too much with his stance on equality. Instead, he took a path that allowed anti-slavery voters of all stripes to join him. He might have lost a Senate election in 1858, but his careful path allowed him to be elected president in 1860.

给玛丽·斯皮德的信。该集中的第三份文件（来源 3.3）将我们带回到 1841 年，比林肯-道格拉斯辩论早了 15 年多。这是林肯写给他最亲密的朋友之一约书亚·斯皮德同父异母的妹妹的一封私人信件。与林肯在参议院辩论中公开讲话的风格和形式不同，它很少透露林肯作为政治家的信息，而更多地透露了他的朋友所熟知的私人人物。但如果我们仔细观察，我们会发现这与他 1858 年关于奴隶人性的声明是一致的。也就是说，这封信还包括令现代读者震惊的段落。

Letter to Mary Speed. The third document in the set (Source 3.3) takes us back to 1841, more than 15 years before the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It is a private letter Lincoln wrote to the half-sister of Joshua Speed, one of his closest friends. Different in style and form from Lincoln’s public words at the senatorial debates, it reveals little about Lincoln the politician and more of the private man known by his friends. But if we look closely, we see a consistency with his 1858 statements regarding the humanity of the slave. That said, this letter also includes passages that shock the modern reader.

这封信描述了密西西比河船上的一次旅程，一群奴隶实际上被沿着河流出售，“永远与他们的童年、他们的朋友、他们的父亲和母亲、兄弟和兄弟的场景分离”，林肯写道。姐妹们，其中许多人都是她们的妻子和孩子。” 但随着这封信的继续，它呈现出令人困惑的对比，引发了对其确切含义的争论。当林肯回忆起奴隶们在近距离被锁在一起的景象时，他感动地不是在谈论人类的苦难，而是在谈论人类的幸福。同样的场景可能会激起任何废奴主义者的愤怒和愤慨，但林肯却写下了这样的文字，这些文字可以被理解为“通过推断黑人具有处理囚禁的特殊能力来改善奴隶制的恐怖”。¹⁹

The letter describes a journey on a Mississippi riverboat on which a group of slaves were literally being sold down the river, “separated forever,” Lincoln writes, “from the scenes of their childhood, their friends, their fathers and mothers, and brothers and sisters, and many of them, from their wives and children.” But as the letter continues, it presents a perplexing contrast that has prompted debate about its exact meaning. As he recalled the spectacle of slaves chained together in close quarters, Lincoln was moved to remark not on human misery, but on human happiness. The same scene that would have provoked fury and outrage in any abolitionist inspired Lincoln to write words that can be read as “ameliorat[ing] slavery’s horror with an inference that blacks have a special capacity to deal with captivity.”¹⁹

然而，仔细观察，我们发现林肯对奴隶快乐活动的描述传达了一种信念，即奴隶与白人拥有共同的人性。奴隶对其处境的反应被描述为“一个很好的例子……思考条件对人类幸福的影响……[并且上帝]使人类最糟糕的条件变得可以忍受。” 这些短语不会消除现代读者对被描述为快乐和开朗的被奴役者的不安。但考虑到 19 世纪中叶有关奴隶制和黑人的观念，它们意义重大。

However, on closer inspection, we see that Lincoln’s description of the slaves’ happy activities communicates a belief that slaves shared a common humanity with Whites. The slaves’ response to their situation is presented as “a fine example … for contemplating the effect of condition upon human happiness … [and that God] renders the worst of human conditions tolerable.” Such phrases won’t still a modern-day reader’s discomfort over enslaved people described as happy and cheerful. But considered in the context of mid-19th-century ideas about slavery and the Negro, they are significant.

1830 年后，奴隶制和向西扩张的紧张局势加剧。威廉·劳埃德·加里森 (William Lloyd Garrison) 的废奴主义杂志《解放者》 (The Liberator )的出版以及 1831 年纳特·特纳 (Nat Turner) 的奴隶叛乱加剧了南北之间的分歧。废奴主义言论和对奴隶制制度的攻击促使支持奴隶制的思想家和派别发展理论来证明该制度及其持久性的合理性。²⁰其中包括这样的论点：奴隶制实际上有利于其俘虏，以及黑人在基因上不同且不如白人。林肯在 1841 年的信中并不支持这两种立场。相反，他宣称奴隶也是人，奴隶制要对“人类最糟糕的状况”负责。

After 1830, tensions over slavery and westward expansion grew. Publication of The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison’s abolitionist magazine, and Nat Turner’s slave rebellion in 1831 sharpened the divide between North and South. Abolitionist rhetoric and assaults on the institution of slavery propelled pro-slavery thinkers and factions to develop theories to justify the institution and its permanence.²⁰ These included arguments that slavery actually benefited its captives and that Blacks were genetically different and inferior to Whites. In his 1841 letter, Lincoln embraces neither stance. Rather, he declares slaves to be human beings and slavery responsible for “the worst of human conditions.”

这封速递信还提出了其他问题。它是历史学家如何继续询问消息来源以揭示林肯对种族的看法的一个例子，但几乎找不到表面上的答案。由于林肯的话几乎不关心奴隶的苦难，因此可以被解读为冷酷无情且不关心奴隶制给人类造成的代价。然而，对于林肯学者菲利普·帕鲁丹来说，这表明需要提出更多问题。²¹在写给玛丽·斯皮德（一位生活在蓄奴州肯塔基州的妇女）的信中，林肯是否因为害怕冒犯她而不愿抱怨奴隶制？林肯是否在做他妻子认为的他的本性——最少谈论他最感受的事情？或者他真的相信黑人在“人类最糟糕的条件”下遭受的苦难比其他人少？帕鲁丹想知道林肯对奴隶苦难的思考是否受到他的听众或他自己的隐私感的影响。尽管如此，林肯麻木不仁的问题并没有改变他话语中的观点。他认为黑人是人，奴隶制是残酷的制度。

The Speed letter raises other questions. It serves as an example of how historians continue to interrogate sources to uncover Lincoln’s views on race, while finding few prima facie answers. Because Lincoln’s words show little concern for slaves’ suffering, they can be read as callous and unconcerned with the human costs of slavery. However, to Lincoln scholar Philip Paludan, what this shows is the need to ask more questions.²¹ In writing to Mary Speed, a woman who lived in the slaveholding state of Kentucky, was Lincoln loath to rail against slavery for fear of offending her? Was Lincoln doing what his wife identified as his true nature—talking the least about what he felt the most? Or did he really believe that Blacks suffered less than others in “the worst of human conditions”? Paludan wonders if Lincoln’s musings on the slaves’ suffering were tempered by his audience or his own sense of privacy. Still, the question of Lincoln’s insensitivity doesn’t change the ideas undergirding his words. He considered Blacks as human and slavery as a cruel system.

殖民化。1862 年 8 月 14 日，林肯总统向自由黑人代表团发表讲话，这是有史以来第一个受邀访问白宫的代表团。林肯与他们握手并发表了他的“殖民演讲”（来源3.4）。这些因素的组合令人费解。欢迎黑人入主白宫是否符合黑人大规模移民的信息？

Colonization. On August 14, 1862, President Lincoln addressed a delegation of free Black men, the first ever invited to the White House. Lincoln shook their hands and delivered his “Address on Colonization” (Source 3.4). The pairing of these factors is puzzling. Is welcoming Blacks into the White House consistent with a message of mass Black emigration?

殖民化。美国黑人移民到其他国家（这里指的是中美洲），以建立一个与他们用强迫劳动、血汗和泪水建立起来的社会不同的社会。我们怎么能判断这个计划不是最极端的种族隔离呢？

Colonization. The emigration of Black Americans to other lands—in this case, Central America—to create a separate society from the one they had built with their forced labor, blood, sweat, and tears. How can we judge this plan as anything but segregation at its most extreme?

自共和国诞生以来，殖民化的想法就一直存在。效仿 18 世纪末英国在塞拉利昂的做法，美国殖民协会于 1821 年在非洲西海岸建立了利比里亚。在 1830 年代之前，殖民是“白人反奴隶制情绪的主要体现”，但黑人反对奴隶制政策和激进废奴主义的兴起改变了这一点。²²然而，殖民化仍然有其支持者，在战争爆发前的几年里，人们越来越关注殖民化作为一项实用政策。1861 年 12 月，林肯总统首次向国会发表讲话，要求国会授权拨款实施殖民计划，国会回应拨款 60 万美元。

The idea of colonization had been around since the birth of the Republic. Following the British example in Sierra Leone in the late 18th century, the American Colonization Society founded Liberia on the west coast of Africa in 1821. Before the 1830s colonization was the “main embodiment of white anti-slavery sentiment,” but Black opposition to the policy and the rise of radical abolitionism changed that.²² However, colonization continued to have its supporters, and the years immediately before the outbreak of war saw increased attention to it as a practical policy. When President Lincoln addressed Congress for the first time in December 1861, he asked them to authorize funds to carry out a colonization plan and Congress responded by appropriating $600,000.

历史学家一致认为，殖民运动从一开始就充满了相互冲突的目的。一些人支持这个想法，因为他们认为这是黑人能够生活在公平社会中的唯一途径——他们认为美国白人对黑人如此敌视，平等的权利和特权永远是遥不可及的。对于其他人来说，殖民化是莱隆·贝内特所说的“白人梦想”，一场让美国及其领土摆脱黑人的运动。²³还有一些人将殖民视为传播基督教理想、同时与遥远的人口建立经济联系的机会。

Historians agree that the colonization movement was riddled with conflicting purposes from its start. Some supported the idea because they saw it as the only way that Blacks could live in an equitable society—they judged White America so hostile to Blacks that equal rights and privileges would always be out of reach. For others, colonization was what Lerone Bennett called a “white dream,” a movement to make the United States and its territories free of Blacks.²³ Still others saw colonization as the opportunity to spread Christian ideals while forging economic ties with far-off populations.

林肯支持殖民化，但他对此的看法仍然使历史学家产生分歧和困惑。²⁴他为什么支持这项政策？林肯对殖民化的支持是否是一个“心理安全阀”，旨在让恐惧的白人放心，解放将伴随着殖民化？²⁵或者他反对种族混合，因此主张驱逐自由民？他在政治生涯中改变了对殖民的看法吗？

Lincoln supported colonization, but his views on it continue to divide and perplex historians.²⁴ Why did he support this policy? Was Lincoln’s support for colonization a “psychological safety valve” meant to reassure fearful Whites that emancipation would be accompanied by colonization?²⁵ Or was he against the races mixing and so advocated removing the freedmen? Did he change his mind about colonization during his political career?

哥伦比亚大学的埃里克·福纳认为，林肯对殖民的看法在他执政期间确实发生了变化，《解放奴隶宣言》是一个转折点。林肯从支持伴随逐步解放计划的殖民计划到完全放弃该政策。²⁶林肯在执政之初主张逐步释放奴隶，补偿奴隶主，并将其与殖民化结合起来。在《解放奴隶宣言》和海地附近的瓦什岛黑人殖民实验失败后，他放弃了对该政策的支持。林肯最终批准了第十三修正案，并将选举权扩大到黑人退伍军人，这表明他可以将自由民视为美国公民。国会60万美元中他只花费了38,000美元，这一事实也表明殖民政策不再对他有利。

Columbia’s Eric Foner argued that Lincoln’s views on colonization did indeed change during his administration, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was a turning point. Lincoln went from supporting a colonization program that accompanied a plan of gradual emancipation to abandoning the policy altogether.²⁶ At the beginning of his administration, Lincoln advocated the gradual freeing of slaves, compensating their owners, and coupling this with colonization. Following the Emancipation Proclamation and a failed experiment of Black colonization on Île à Vache, a small island near Haiti, he abandoned his support for the policy. Lincoln eventually endorsed the Thirteenth Amendment and extended the franchise to Black veterans—demonstrating that he could envision freedmen as American citizens. The fact that he spent only $38,000 of Congress’s $600,000 also shows that the colonization policy dropped from his favor.

林肯在 1862 年 8 月发表的言论（来源 3.4）先于《解放奴隶宣言》，毫无疑问，历史学家将继续争论其意图和意义。然而，他们确实重申了先前文件中存在的重要思想，包括认为条件对人类发展很重要（在他使用“系统性压迫”一词时）。林肯还比他在斯普林菲尔德的含糊其辞（即黑人“也许”在智力上与他相当）走得更远，并使用了“聪明的有色人种”一词。即便如此，这个讲话还是让许多黑人感到愤怒，不仅因为他们认为否认自己和白人一样是美国人，而且因为他们认为黑人是内战的原因的声明（此处未包括）战争。²⁷

Lincoln’s words of August 1862 (Source 3.4) preceded the Emancipation Proclamation, and historians will, no doubt, continue to argue their intent and meaning. However, they do reiterate important ideas present in the previous documents, including a belief that conditions matter to human development (in his use of the term “systematically oppressed”). Lincoln also goes further than his equivocation at Springfield (that Blacks may “perhaps” be his intellectual equal) and uses the phrase “intelligent colored men.” Even so, the address made many Blacks angry, not only for what they saw as a denial that they were as American as the White man, but also for statements (not included here) they understood to mean that Blacks were the cause of the Civil War.²⁷

关于殖民化这一与奴隶制和废除奴隶制密切相关的观念和立场在内战前的 25 年里发生了变化，就像有关奴隶制的政治运动发生了变化一样。虽然林肯的立场在前几十年可能是进步的，但与 1830 年代后激进的废奴主义立场相比，它是保守的。

Perspectives and stances regarding colonization, an idea intimately linked to slavery and abolition, changed in the 25 years leading up to the Civil War, just as political movements regarding the institution of slavery had. While Lincoln’s stance may have been progressive in earlier decades, it was conservative when compared with the post-1830s radical abolitionist stance.

“我们来统治，黑人来服务。” 初读时，来自宾夕法尼亚州北部的白人作家约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊 (John Bell Robinson) 在 1863 年发表的文字（来源 3.5）似乎与本次调查无关。毕竟，他们既没有提到林肯，也没有提到他的政策。然而，罗宾逊提供了一个镜头来了解当时许多白人的想法、阅读和出版内容，实际上为读者提供了林肯自己观点的背景。

“Us to Rule, and the Negroes to Serve.” On first reading, the 1863 words of John Bell Robinson (Source 3.5), a White author from the northern state of Pennsylvania, may seem irrelevant to this investigation; after all, they mention neither Lincoln nor his policies. However, Robinson provides a lens into what many Whites were thinking, reading, and publishing at the time, in effect providing the reader with a context for Lincoln’s own views.

在这份文件中，我们看到了一种如此普遍的种族化意识形态，它被认为既不令人震惊也不疯狂。约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊声称，“黑人奴隶制的好处”超越了自由劳动，相当于一项神圣的义务。他写到上帝对白人“统治，黑人服务”的计划，并警告说，篡改这些“神圣的安排”即使不是世俗的征服，也会导致永恒的堕落。罗宾逊还提到了殖民化，声称任何尝试都会失败，因为黑人“将在不到五十年的时间里重新陷入异教和野蛮之中”。

In this document we see a racialized ideology that was so common it was considered neither shocking nor lunatic. John Bell Robinson claimed that the “advantages of Negro slavery” went beyond free labor and amounted to a sacred obligation. He wrote of God’s plan for White people “to rule, and the Negroes to serve,” warning that tampering with these “holy arrangements” would result in eternal degradation, if not worldly subjugation. Robinson also mentioned colonization, asserting that any attempt would fail, as Negroes “would fall back into heathenism and barbarism in less than fifty years.”

这位北方人的言论与林肯的言论形成了鲜明的对比，他声称黑人本质上是低等的，不具备自我统治的能力。它们为理解林肯生活和讲话的世界提供了必要的背景。

This Northerner’s words provide a sharp contrast to Lincoln’s, by asserting that Blacks were inherently inferior and not equipped to rule themselves. They offer a necessary context for understanding the world in which Lincoln lived and spoke.

证实消息来源。虽然资料来源 3.1至3.4是历史学家关于林肯观点的持续对话中的固定内容，但其他文件和事件也反复出现。例如，林肯 1862 年 8 月写给《纽约论坛报》编辑霍勒斯·格里利的信经常被用来表明林肯只关心国家的统一，而不关心废除奴隶制。林肯写道：

Corroborating Sources. While Sources 3.1 to 3.4 are fixtures in historians’ ongoing conversations about Lincoln’s views, other documents and events appear repeatedly. For example, Lincoln’s August 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley is frequently used to show that Lincoln was concerned only with the nation’s unity, not with abolishing slavery. Lincoln wrote:

通常引用就到此结束。但要理解林肯的情感，明智的做法是阅读他接下来说的话：“我在这里根据我对公务的看法阐述了我的目的；我不打算改变我经常表达的个人愿望，即世界各地的所有人都可以获得自由” ²⁸ [强调原文]。

Often the quote ends there. But to understand Lincoln’s sentiments, it is wise to read what he goes on to say: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free”²⁸ [emphases in original].

在对林肯观点的讨论中也反复出现了两个事件：1861 年 8 月 30 日弗里蒙特将军宣布解放密苏里州的奴隶，以及大卫·亨特将军 1862 年解放南卡罗来纳州、佐治亚州和佛罗里达州奴隶的命令。一些人认为，当林肯推翻弗里蒙特的命令时，他表明他无意释放奴隶。其他人则认为，这更多的是关于政治家和律师林肯：弗里蒙特没有宪法权力来发布这样的命令，而林肯甚至不认为自己的权力可以延伸到那么远。这里重要的是他尊重自己作为法律执行者的地位，而不是作为法律制定者的地位。此外，鉴于首席大法官坦尼的最高法院——一个对支持奴隶制和反黑人意识形态都表现出友好态度的法院——林肯对可能涉及他们的任何举动都保持警惕。

Two events also appear repeatedly in a discussion of Lincoln’s views: General Fremont’s August 30, 1861, proclamation freeing the slaves in Missouri, and General David Hunter’s 1862 order to emancipate slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Some argue that when Lincoln overrode Fremont’s orders, he signaled a lack of intent to free the slaves. Others argue that this was more about Lincoln the politician and lawyer: Fremont didn’t have the constitutional power to issue such an order and Lincoln did not see even his own power as extending that far. What mattered here was his respect for his position as executor of the laws, not as writer of the same. Additionally, given Chief Justice Taney’s Supreme Court—a court that had shown itself friendly to both pro-slavery and anti-Black ideology—Lincoln was wary of any moves that might involve them.

将林肯置于情境中并不能提供完美的答案。历史探究教会我们容忍复杂性，而不是回避它。我们可以肯定地说的一件事是，林肯的想法比任何简单的标签都要复杂。历史学家詹姆斯·莱克谈到了林肯思想中的差异和矛盾——其他历史学家会强调林肯散文中的细微差别和区别。²⁹一个绝对的标签，无论是种族主义还是平等主义，都无法抓住历史证据。

Contextualizing Lincoln doesn’t provide pat answers. Historical inquiry teaches us to tolerate complexity, not shy away from it. One thing we can say for sure is that Lincoln’s ideas are more complex than any simple label. Historian James Leiker talks about the discrepancies and contradictions in Lincoln’s thought—other historians would emphasize the nuances and distinctions in Lincoln’s prose.²⁹ An absolute label, racist or egalitarian, doesn’t begin to capture the historical evidence.

将林肯视为存在于种族主义和平等主义这两个绝对之间的连续统一体更具启发性。我们可以断言，与他的白人同辈相比，林肯在他的时代并不是种族主义者，或者肯定比其他人更少。我们还可以断言，就像南北战争前美国的大多数（如果不是全部）白人一样，林肯实际上是一个种族主义者。

It’s more instructive to think about Lincoln as existing along a continuum between these two absolutes of racist and egalitarian. We could assert that compared to his White peers, Lincoln was not racist for his time, or certainly less so than others. We could also assert that like most if not all Whites in antebellum America, Lincoln was in fact a racist.

这引出了我们问题的第二个答案。林肯统治下的美国是一个极其种族主义的地方。讨论废奴运动和奴隶制问题上的地区分裂可能会让我们产生一种错误的感觉，即种族主义仅限于特定地区和人口。但从历史角度阅读这些文件揭示了一个黑人被剥夺人性的世界，人们用今天令我们厌恶的理论为奴隶制的野蛮行径辩护。林肯是种族主义者吗？这取决于。他的时间到了吗？是的，比我们想象的还要多。

Which leads us to the second answer to our question. Lincoln’s America was an incredibly racist place. Discussing the abolitionist movement and regional splits over slavery can lull us into a false sense that racism was confined to a particular region and population. But reading these documents historically reveals a world in which Blacks were denied their humanity, and people justified the barbarism of slavery with theories that repel us today. Was Lincoln a racist? It depends. Was his time? Yes, more than we would like to think possible.

为什么要教授林肯和种族？

Why Teach About Lincoln and Race?

了解背景很重要。我们情不自禁地评判过去。每个历史老师都有一个学生冲进来分享这个启示：“杰斐逊拥有奴隶！哥伦布砍掉了当地人的耳朵！” 这些学生渴望分享这些信息，证明他们过去的老师不仅遗漏了部分故事，还粉饰了这些人物，把无赖变成了英雄。但我们应该如何评价过去及其参与者呢？按照我们当代的标准还是按照他们那个时代的标准？虽然没有一种方法可以回答这个问题，但历史要求我们了解两者之间的区别。

Learning That Context Matters. We can’t help judging the past. Every history teacher has had the student who rushes in to share the revelation, “Jefferson owned slaves! Columbus cut off the ears of natives!” Such students are eager to share this information that proves that their past teachers not only left out part of the story, they whitewashed these figures and turned knaves into heroes. But how should we judge the past and its actors? By our contemporary standards or by the standards of their day? While there is not one way to answer this question, history demands that we know the difference between the two.

林肯的世界是什么样的？与我们自己的非常不同，如此不同，如果我们采取比尔和泰德风格的“精彩冒险”，我们可能会觉得自己像外星人。亚伯拉罕·林肯就是在这个陌生的世界里生活、讲话和领导的。如果我们要从历史的角度思考林肯的话，我们就必须抵制简单的判断，并就历史背景提出问题。这些话的背景和目的是什么？他的言论和思想与同时代的人相比如何？³⁰

What was Lincoln’s world like? Very different from our own, so different that we might feel like aliens if we were to take an “excellent adventure” Bill-&-Ted style. It was in this foreign world that Abraham Lincoln lived, spoke, and led. If we are to think historically about Lincoln’s words, we must resist easy judgments and ask questions about historical context. What were the setting and purpose of these words? And how do his words and ideas compare to those of his contemporaries?³⁰

对于历史学家来说，背景是历史推理的中心。让学生了解林肯关于种族的观点和言论，为他们提供了学习“情境化”的绝佳机会。

For historians, context lies at the epicenter of historical reasoning. Engaging students in Lincoln’s views and words on race presents them with powerful opportunities to learn what “contextualizing” is all about.

分析有关种族的想法。种族是我们课堂上经常被掩盖或忽略的话题。不可否认，种族对于理解美国的过去至关重要——以种族名义犯下的罪行、为这些罪行辩护的意识形态、具体化这些意识形态的机构——这样的例子不胜枚举。种族主义影响了我们国家的发展方式以及我们的身份。这些文件让学生专门思考种族化的想法并对其进行及时分析。

Analyzing Ideas About Race. Race is a topic too often glossed over or omitted in our classrooms. There is no denying that race matters to understanding the American past—the crimes that have been done in its name, the ideologies that justified those crimes, the institutions that reified those ideologies—the list goes on. Racism has influenced how our country has developed and who we have become. These documents engage students in thinking specifically about racialized ideas and prompt analysis of them.

了解到那些听起来冒犯我们耳朵的言论在另一个时代可能会被认为是进步的，这为我们的学生打开了一个重要的教训：不要太快地认为你赋予某句话的含义与说话者的意图相同。一些学生不愿意承认种族对美国研究很重要。其他人很快就驳回这是一个令人不快的词，因为它只是更多本土种族主义。对林肯的区别和目的的集中考虑使两个小组都可以练习分析这个不稳定且必要的主题。

Learning that statements that sound offensive to our ears could have been judged progressive in another time opens up an important lesson for our students: Don’t be too quick to assume that the meaning you ascribe to a statement is the same one the speaker intended. Some students are reluctant to acknowledge that race is important to the study of America. Others quickly dismiss an untoward word as just more home-grown racism. A focused consideration of Lincoln’s distinctions and purposes gives both groups practice in analyzing this volatile and necessary topic.

放慢学生的阅读速度。这些文件需要分析。它们要求学生慢慢阅读并注意单词的选择和细微差别。在与道格拉斯的辩论中，历史学家们在与道格拉斯的辩论中很容易忽略一个“也许”的含糊其词，这为历史学家打开了一个充满可能性的世界。林肯是一位细心的文字大师。检查他的话语为学生提供了一个机会，让他们了解资格和区别对意义的重要性。如果学生仅从表面上阅读这些文献，而不去思考谁在向谁展示什么，他们就会错过历史背景的关键方面，并且无法令人满意地回答问题。了解林肯意味着放慢脚步并询问他为什么使用一个词而不是另一个词。对文本的仔细关注对于理解历史以及我们如何了解我们对过去的了解至关重要。

Slowing Down Student Reading. These documents demand analysis. They require that students read slowly and pay attention to word choice and nuance. In a single “perhaps,” an easily missed equivocation in the debate with Douglas, historians open up a world of possibilities. Lincoln was a careful wordsmith; examining his words is an opportunity for students to see how qualification and distinctions matter to meaning. If students read these documents on a surface level, without wondering who is presenting what to whom, they will miss key aspects of historical context and won’t be able to answer the question satisfactorily. Understanding Lincoln means slowing down and asking why he used one word and not another. This careful attention to text is central to understanding history and how we know what we know about the past.

挑战学生的误解。当学生们思考说出这些话的世界时，关于过去的错误观念就会受到挑战。尽管伊利诺伊州是一个北方自由州，但种族优越感在皮奥里亚仍然发挥得非常明显。学生们了解到，种族偏见不仅限于南方，而且存在于整个内战前的美国。

Challenging Student Misconceptions. As students consider the world in which these words were uttered, flawed ideas about the past are challenged. Although Illinois was a Northern free state, racial superiority still played very well in Peoria. Students learn that racial prejudice was not limited to the South, but existed throughout antebellum America.

关于文件证据的误导性想法也将受到挑战。约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊的文件（来源 3.5）没有提及林肯。学生们经常推断这使得与林肯观点的问题无关。³¹但罗宾逊为了解当时人们的思考、阅读和出版内容提供了一个重要的视角。通过研究罗宾逊的话，学生将能够更好地在 1850 年代和 1860 年代的一系列观点中定位林肯。

Misleading ideas about documentary evidence will also be challenged. John Bell Robinson’s document (Source 3.5) makes no mention of Lincoln. Students often infer that this makes it irrelevant to questions about Lincoln’s views.³¹ But Robinson provides a vital lens for what people of this time were thinking, reading, and publishing. By examining Robinson’s words, students will be better able to locate Lincoln on a spectrum of opinion in the 1850s and 1860s.

您将如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

场景 1（2-3 小时课程）。林肯是种族主义者吗？让学生参与“结构化学术争议”，他们分析文档以回答焦点问题并得出有根据的结论。³²

Scenario 1 (2–3 Hour Lesson). Was Lincoln a racist? Engage students in a “Structured Academic Controversy” where they analyze documents in order to answer the focus question and craft a warranted conclusion.³²

以 1858 年斯普林菲尔德的林肯的话开始课程（来源 3.2），但省略任何识别信息（说话者、年份、地点）。询问学生他们会如何描述这篇文章以及他们还想了解哪些内容。对于任何演讲者、时间和地点，他们会以同样的方式描述它吗？然后与他们分享识别信息。当他们发现这是林肯的话时，他们会感到惊讶吗？

Open the lesson with Lincoln’s words from Springfield in 1858 (Source 3.2), but omit any identifying information (speaker, year, place). Ask students how they would describe the passage and what else they want to know about it. Would they describe it the same way given any speaker, time, and place? Then share with them the identifying information. Are they surprised to find out that these are Lincoln’s words?

告诉学生他们将调查这个问题：林肯是种族主义者吗？检查活动的结构（工具 3.1）。将学生分成四人一组，每组分配一对 A 面（是的，林肯是种族主义者），另一对 B 面（不，林肯不是种族主义者）。分发文件包（来源 3.1 – 3.5）以及文件分析图表（工具 3.2））。学生两人一组仔细阅读文件，寻找并记录其指定职位的证据。他们还应该记录在此过程中出现的任何问题。在两人收集了支持其立场的证据后，他们将四人一组聚集在一起。第一对分享他们的立场和支持证据，而另一对则倾听以重申该立场。然后角色互换。提醒学生，在这个听力和重述活动中，学生不是辩论。此后，学生放弃分配的位置并讨论问题的最佳答案，即最能得到学生在活动中带来的证据和其他背景知识支持的答案。

Tell students that they will be investigating the question, Was Lincoln a racist? Review the structure of the activity (Tool 3.1). Organize students into groups of four and assign one pair in each group Side A (Yes, Lincoln was a racist) and the other pair Side B (No, Lincoln was not a racist). Pass out document packets (Sources 3.1–3.5) with the document analysis chart (Tool 3.2). In pairs, students work through the documents, finding and recording evidence for their assigned position. They should also record any questions that arise during this process. After pairs have gathered evidence for their position, they will convene in groups of four. The first pair shares their position and the supporting evidence while the other pair listens in order to restate that position. Then reverse the roles. Remind students that in this listening and restating activity, students are not debating. After this, students give up their assigned positions and discuss the best answer to the question, that is, the one that is best supported by the evidence and other background knowledge students bring to the activity.

最后，要求学生写下问题的独立答案，并使用书面证据来支持他们的答案。

Finally, ask students to write independent answers to the question, using documentary evidence to support their answers.

场景 2（2-4 小时课程）。通过添加以下问题来扩展场景 1：我们应该如何判断过去？

Scenario 2 (2–4 Hour Lesson). Extend Scenario 1 by including the question, How should we judge the past?

将第二个焦点问题纳入课程中，并让学生在解决有关林肯和种族的问题后考虑它。他们可以写一个单独的段落来明确解决这个问题，或者将其包含在对第一个问题的书面分析中。

Include this second focal question in the lesson and have students consider it after they have addressed the question about Lincoln and race. They can write a separate paragraph explicitly addressing this question or include it in their written analysis of the first.

场景 3（1 小时课程）。阅读上下文：看到它，做它，知道它。使用建模和指导实践来教学生如何将历史来源置于情境中。

Scenario 3 (1 Hour Lesson). Reading for context: see it, do it, know it. Use modeling and guided practice to teach students how to contextualize historical sources.

引入林肯是否是种族主义者的问题，并解释道：“你将试图回答这个问题，但要做到这一点，你必须仔细阅读历史证据。” 确保每个学生都有源 3.2的副本，然后模拟历史学家如何阅读和处理此文档。首先大声朗读源信息和标题，停下来提出问题和评论。然后大声朗读文档的内容，再次停下来解析一个短语、质疑一个术语或大声地思考。这种模型的要点是“大声思考”，让学生看到历史学家在阅读时所做的积极提问和思考。³³

Introduce the question of whether Lincoln was a racist with the explanation, “You will be trying to answer this question, but to do so you must carefully read the historical evidence.” Make sure every student has a copy of Source 3.2, then model how a historian would read and approach this document. First read aloud the source information and head note, pausing to generate questions and comments. Then read the contents of the document aloud, again pausing to parse a phrase, question a term, or wonder aloud. The point of this modeling is to “think aloud,” and make visible for students the active questioning and thinking that historians do as they read.³³

阅读完该文档后，确定您提出了哪些问题来建立历史背景。其中包括：他在和谁说话？他发表这次演讲的目的是什么？当时还发生了什么？1858 年伊利诺伊州现有的种族态度和法律是什么？这些因素如何影响林肯的用词选择和信息？阅读本章的史学文章将帮助你回答这些问题。但是，也请包括您没有答案的问题；这些可以用来向学生表明，仔细阅读历史文献意味着明确你的无知并确定你需要知道什么才能理解它。

After you work through the document, identify what questions you asked to establish the historical context. These will include: Who was he talking to? What were his purposes in making this speech? What else was happening at the time? What were existing racial attitudes and laws in Illinois in 1858? How might these factors have shaped Lincoln’s word choice and message? Reading this chapter’s historiographical essay will help you answer these questions. However, also include questions you don’t have answers for; these may be used to show students that closely reading a historical document means specifying your ignorance and identifying what you need to know to understand it.

将历史背景定义为“想象背景”，并向学生展示一些将文档置于背景中的入门问题（工具 3.3）。为了结合上下文，提出以下几点：

Define historical context as “imagining the setting,” and show students some beginning questions to contextualize documents (Tool 3.3). Make the points that in order to contextualize:

1. 历史学家利用他们对时间和地点的了解来帮助他们理解这份文献；
2. Historians use what they know about the time and place to help them understand the document;
3. 历史学家询问他们不知道的内容以及他们还需要知道的内容，以尝试更全面地理解这份文件。
4. Historians ask questions about what they don’t know and what else they need to know, to try to more fully understand the document.

在您的指导下，学生可以使用您建模的阅读练习来帮助他们理解和分析源代码 3.3。您可以通过提出诸如“阅读历史文献时我们应该首先做什么？”之类的问题来引导他们完成这个过程。并提示他们在文档的关键位置使用情境化问题。经过指导练习后，学生可以作为作业独立阅读和分析源码 3.5 。

With your guidance, students can use the reading practices you modeled to help them to understand and analyze Source 3.3. You can walk them through this process by asking questions such as “What should we do first when reading a historical document?” and prompting them to use contextualizing questions at key places in the document. After this guided practice, students can read and analyze Source 3.5 independently as homework.

来源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源3.1 ：道格拉斯的演讲（修改）

SOURCE 3.1: DOUGLAS’S SPEECH (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自道格拉斯于 1858 年 8 月 21 日在伊利诺伊州渥太华举行的第一次辩论中对林肯的讲话。引自 DE Fehrenbacher 编辑，亚伯拉罕·林肯，演讲与著作，1832-1858 年（纽约：美国图书馆，1989 年） ，504–505。

Source: Excerpt from Douglas’s address to Lincoln in their first debate at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858. Cited in D. E. Fehrenbacher, ed., Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1832–1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), 504–505.

资料来源3.2：林肯对道格拉斯的回应（修改）

SOURCE 3.2: LINCOLN’S RESPONSE TO DOUGLAS (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自亚伯拉罕·林肯 1858 年 8 月 21 日在伊利诺伊州渥太华对史蒂芬·A·道格拉斯的答复。引自 DE Fehrenbacher 编辑，亚伯拉罕·林肯，演讲与著作，1832-1858 年（纽约：美国图书馆，1989 年） ，512。

Source: Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s reply to Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858. Cited in D. E. Fehrenbacher, ed., Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1832–1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), 512.

资料来源3.3：致玛丽·斯皮德的信（修改后）

SOURCE 3.3: LETTER TO MARY SPEED (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自亚伯拉罕·林肯 1841 年 9 月 27 日写给私人朋友玛丽·斯皮德的信，引自《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》（第 1 卷）。（安娜堡：密歇根大学数字图书馆制作服务，2001 年），260。可参见http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

Source: Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Mary Speed, a personal friend, September 27, 1841, cited in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (Vol. 1). (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Digital Library Production Services, 2001), 260. Available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

资料来源3.4：关于殖民化的讲话

SOURCE 3.4: ADDRESS ON COLONIZATION

资料来源：林肯于 1862 年 8 月 14 日在白宫向一群自由黑人发表的《关于殖民的演说》，引自《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》（第 5 卷）。（安娜堡：密歇根大学数字图书馆制作服务，2001 年），371-372。可在http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/获取

Source: Lincoln’s “Address on Colonization” delivered to a group of free Black men at the White House on August 14, 1862, cited in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (Vol. 5). (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Digital Library Production Services, 2001), 371–372. Available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

资料来源3.5：约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊

SOURCE 3.5: JOHN BELL ROBINSON

资料来源：摘自 JB Robinson，《奴隶制与反奴隶制的图片：从道德、社会和政治角度考虑的黑人奴隶制的优势和黑人自由的好处》（费城，1863 年），42。

Source: Excerpt from J. B. Robinson, Pictures of Slavery and Anti-Slavery: Advantages of Negro Slavery and the Benefits of Negro Freedom Morally, Socially, and Politically Considered (Philadelphia, 1863), 42.

工具3.1 ：结构化学术争议方向_ _

TOOL 3.1: STRUCTURED ACADEMIC CONTROVERSY DIRECTIONS

---

问：亚伯拉罕·林肯是种族主义者吗？

Question: Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist?

 

 

A面 Side A	B面 Side B
是的，林肯是一个种族主义者 Yes, Lincoln was a racist	不，林肯不是种族主义者 No, Lincoln was not a racist

1. 合作伙伴准备
   1. 寻找证据来支持你的论点。工艺位置。
2. Partners Prepare
   1. Find evidence to support your side of the argument. Craft position.
3. 职位介绍
   1. A 方使用文本中的支持证据表达自己的立场。
   2. B 方重申，以使 A 方满意。
   3. B 方使用文本中的支持证据阐述其立场。
   4. A 方重申，令 B 方满意。
4. Position Presentation
   1. Side A presents their position using supporting evidence from the texts.
   2. Side B restates to Side A’s satisfaction.
   3. Side B presents their position using supporting evidence from the texts.
   4. Side A restates to Side B’s satisfaction.
5. 建立共识
   1. 放弃角色。
   2. 使用支持证据就该问题达成共识（或至少澄清你们的分歧所在）。
   3. 思考一个问题：
      
      
      
      我们应该如何评价过去的人？
6. Consensus-Building
   1. Abandon roles.
   2. Build consensus regarding the question (or at least clarify where your differences lie), using supporting evidence.
   3. Consider the question:
      
      
      
      How should we judge people from the past?

工具3.2 ： SAC文件分析图_

TOOL 3.2: SAC DOCUMENT ANALYSIS CHART

共识：

CONSENSUS:

 

 

写作提示

WRITING PROMPT

林肯是种族主义者吗？

Was Lincoln a racist?

 

 

使用证据（引用、信息）来支持你的答案。如果您愿意，请包括对问题的评估。

Use evidence (quotes, information) to support your answer. Include an evaluation of the question if you wish.

 

 

工具3.3 ：上下文问题_

TOOL 3.3: CONTEXT QUESTIONS

---

1. 该资料是何时何地编写或制作的？
2. When and where was this source written or produced?
3. 撰写本文时还发生了什么？
4. What else was happening at the time this was written?
5. 为什么会产生它？
6. Why was it produced?
7. 那时有什么不同？什么是相同的？
8. What was different back then? What was the same?
9. 在当时的人眼中，它会是什么样子？
10. What would it look like through the eyes of someone who lived back then?

建议资源

Suggested Resources

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutbiovideo.html

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutbiovideo.html

该网站由亚伯拉罕·林肯历史数字化项目维护，拥有大量有关林肯在担任总统之前的生活的材料。资源包括解释性文章、课程计划、学术讲座视频、主要来源档案、地图和图像。这些可以按格式或主题浏览。

Maintained by the Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project, this site has a wealth of materials focused on Lincoln’s life prior to his presidency. Resources include interpretive essays, lesson plans, videos of scholarly lectures, primary source archives, maps, and images. These can be browsed by format or theme.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/institute/lincoln.html

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/institute/lincoln.html

这个通往林肯教学和学习资源的门户位于吉尔德·莱尔曼研究所，包括关于林肯的宝贵（且简短！）学术论文和视频讲座。特别有趣的是在线展览“林肯与解放黑奴宣言”，其中包括解释性说明以及关键文件的图像和文字记录。

This gateway to resources on teaching and learning about Lincoln, housed at the Gilder Lehrman Institute, includes invaluable (and brief!) scholarly essays on Lincoln and video lectures. Of special interest is the online exhibition “Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation,” which includes explanatory notes, and images and transcripts of key documents.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/alhome.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/alhome.html

林肯先生的虚拟图书馆

Mr. Lincoln’s Virtual Library

国会图书馆收藏了大量有关林肯及其时代的手稿、乐谱和纪念品。

The Library of Congress’s large collection of manuscripts, sheet music, and memorabilia regarding Lincoln and his times.

http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/index.html

http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/index.html

在马里兰大学的支持下，自由民和南方社会项目利用国家档案馆的文件，通过参与者的话语生动地演绎了解放的戏剧。特别有趣的可能是详细的“内战期间解放年表”（http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/chronol.htm）。

Supported by the University of Maryland, the Freedmen and Southern Society Project uses documents from the National Archives to vivify the drama of emancipation through the words of its participants. Of special interest may be the detailed “Chronology of Emancipation during the Civil War” (http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/chronol.htm).

http://www.abrahamlincoln.org/

http://www.abrahamlincoln.org/

林肯研究所的主页直接链接到其六个网站，重点关注林肯生活的不同方面。解释性文章和选定的主要来源使深入探讨林肯主题变得容易。

This home page for the Lincoln Institute links directly to its six websites focused on different aspects of Lincoln’s life. Interpretive essays and selected primary sources make it easy to pursue a Lincoln topic in depth.

http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/introduction.html

http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/introduction.html

这个专业发展研讨会由 Annenberg Media 制作，探讨林肯在废除奴隶制中的作用。参与者将通过视频讲座、主要资料来源和指导性问题来思考林肯对非裔美国人和奴隶制的看法。

Produced by Annenberg Media, this professional development workshop explores Lincoln’s role in the ending of slavery. Participants are prompted to consider Lincoln’s beliefs on African Americans and slavery using a video lecture, primary sources, and guiding questions.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

在这里，由罗伊·P·巴斯勒 (Roy P. Basler) 领导的团队编辑的多卷本经典著作《亚伯拉罕·林肯全集》以可搜索的形式在线提供。

Here, the multivolume classic The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by a team led by Roy P. Basler, is available online in searchable form.

1892 年夏天，本杰明·哈里森总统陷入了一场激烈的连任竞选之中。7 月 21 日，他发布公告，呼吁设立一个新的全国性节日：“发现日”（见来源 4.1）。发现日在学校、教堂和其他集会场所举行，将克里斯托弗·哥伦布视为“进步和启蒙”的象征。一个多世纪后，哥伦布日成为美国仅有的两个纪念个人的节日之一（另外一个是马丁·路德·金博士的生日）。

In the summer of 1892, President Benjamin Harrison was locked in a fierce campaign for reelection to a second term. On July 21, he issued a proclamation calling for a new national holiday: “Discovery Day” (see Source 4.1). To be observed in schools, churches, and other places of assembly, Discovery Day honored Christopher Columbus as a symbol of “progress and enlightenment.” Over a century later, Columbus Day is one of only two American holidays (along with the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) that honor an individual.

虽然前几代人将哥伦布视为勇敢的探险家和勇敢的冒险家，但今天的历史学家却往往不那么慷慨。柯克帕特里克·塞尔的《克里斯托弗·哥伦布与天堂的征服》将哥伦布的遗产描述为暴力、殖民主义、贪婪和种族主义之一。霍华德·津恩（Howard Zinn）的《美国人民的历史》已售出超过一百万册，他将水手描绘成一个在印度群岛追逐黄金的偏执狂。由于没有找到他所寻求的财富，津恩的哥伦布诉诸了残暴和最终的人口贩卖，他写道：“让我们以三位一体的名义继续发送所有可以出售的奴隶。” ¹

While previous generations viewed Columbus as an intrepid explorer and courageous risk-taker, today’s historians tend to be less generous. Kirkpatrick Sale’s Christopher Columbus and the Conquest of Paradise describes Columbus’s legacy as one of violence, colonialism, greed, and racism. Howard Zinn, whose A People’s History of the United States has sold well over a million copies, casts the mariner as a monomaniacal fiend driven by the pursuit of gold in the Indies. Not finding the riches he sought, Zinn’s Columbus resorted to brutality and eventual human trafficking, writing: “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.”¹

唉，哥伦布最近表现不佳。就像前几代人对哥伦布航行的歌颂“蓝色的海洋”一样，历史学家对哥伦布的悲观描绘已经渗透到大众的意识中。南达科他州和加利福尼亚州伯克利市甚至在20世纪90年代废除了哥伦布日，分别将其更名为“美国原住民日”和“原住民日”。

Alas, Columbus has not fared well of late. Like the rhyme about his sailing “the ocean blue” for previous generations, historians’ bleak portrait of Columbus has penetrated popular consciousness. South Dakota and the city of Berkeley, California, even abrogated Columbus Day in the 1990s, renaming it “Native American Day” and “Indigenous People’s Day,” respectively.

考虑到哥伦布的股价不断下跌，在我们最近完成的一项研究中，高中历史学生在阅读原始的哥伦布日法令时感到愤怒也就不足为奇了。²这些学生被要求阅读一系列文件并将每个文件置于历史背景中。当他们阅读文本时，学生们谈论了他们认为这些文件的内容以及想到的任何其他关联。

Given Columbus’s falling stock, it is hardly surprising that in a recent study we completed, high school history students bristled when reading the original Columbus Day decree.² These students were asked to read a series of documents and to place each in historical context. As they read through the texts, students talked about what they thought the documents were about and any other associations that came to mind.

当哈里森宣布“发现日”时，一些学生立即开始抨击哥伦布。雅各布是美国历史课先修课程的一名高中生，他的评论是这样开始的：

When they reached Harrison’s “Discovery Day” proclamation, some students wasted no time getting down to Columbus-bashing. Jacob, a high school student in an Advanced Placement U.S. history class, began his comments thus:

此外，雅各布抱怨道，该文件“赞扬了哥伦布的虔诚信仰”。哥伦布“自称是一名真正的基督徒，但他也俘虏并折磨了印第安人，所以他可能并不像现在这样高贵。” 当被问及他是否还发生了什么事情时，雅各布回答道：“事实上，这已经成为我们应该尊敬的节日，这更糟糕！”

Further, Jacob complained, the document “praises Columbus for his devout faith.” Columbus “claimed to be a true Christian, but he also captured and tortured Indians, so he wasn’t maybe as noble as this is having him be.” Asked if anything else occurred to him, Jacob responded: “And the fact that it’s becoming a holiday that we’re supposed to revere, that’s even worse!”

雅各布的反应在这群聪明、善于表达的高中生中很常见。雅各布利用背景知识，直奔探险家，进行了一些人可能认为的“批判性思维”。毫无疑问，至关重要。

Jacob’s response was common among this group of bright, articulate high school students. Drawing on background knowledge, Jacob went right at the explorer, engaging in what some might view as “critical thinking.” Critical, without a doubt.

事实证明，哈里森总统的声明与 1492 年甚至哥伦布本人都没有什么关系。雅各布虽然能力强、善于表达，但他却错过了这份文件的真实故事。

President Harrison’s proclamation, it turns out, has little to do with 1492, or even Columbus himself. Capable and articulate as he was, Jacob had missed the document’s real story.

历史学家如何解读它？

How Did Historians Read It?

当被问及同一份文件的内容时，一群历史学博士生的看法截然不同，他们引用了以下内容：

Asked what the same document was about, a group of doctoral candidates in history saw it quite differently, citing such things as:

• “扩大英雄万神殿，将以前的不受欢迎的人包括在内。”
• The “expansion of the heroic pantheon to include former undesirables.”
• “为了在城市中心获得选票而无耻地呼吁超级英雄。”
• A “shameless appeal to superheroes in order to gain votes in urban centers.”
• “战后美国泛白主义的开始。” ³
• “The beginning of Pan-Whiteness in post-bellum America.”³

与高中生看到哥伦布的名字却一动不动不同，研究生们认为这份文件反映了身份政治和古老的竞选活动。事实上，历史学家几乎没有提到哥伦布。为什么两个群体在同一篇文本中看到如此不同的东西？

Unlike the high school students, who alighted on Columbus’s name and never budged, the graduate students viewed the document as a reflection of identity politics and good old electioneering. In fact, the historians hardly mentioned Columbus at all. How was it that the two groups saw such different things in the same text?

简单的答案是历史学家只是了解更多的美国历史。显然这是真的，但只是在一定程度上。这些年轻的历史学家研究了突尼斯的法国殖民主义者和阿拉伯民族主义者之间的性别关系、巴黎围城与德国统一之间的关系以及阿里死后伊斯兰教的教义分裂等话题，但对美国历史上的这一时期一无所知。这会改变他们对文本的解读。然而，他们确实拥有的是对这份文件的“历史方法”，一种对文献证据的定位，这对于那些在其中实践的人来说几乎像是常识。这种方向打开了一个对未受过教育的读者关闭的世界。

The easy answer would be to say that the historians simply know more American history. Obviously that’s true, but only to a point. Having studied such topics as gender relations among French colonialists and Arab nationalists in Tunisia, the relationship between the Siege of Paris and German unification, and doctrinal schisms in Islam after Ali’s death, the young historians possessed no factual knowledge of this time period in American history that would change their readings of the text. What they did possess, however, was a “historical approach” to the document, an orientation to documentary evidence that almost seems like common sense to those practiced in it. This orientation unlocks a world closed to untutored readers.

虽然高中生对文件中最明显的特征——克里斯托弗·哥伦布的两极分化人物和他在公众舆论场上不断变化的命运——做出了回应，但历史学家却采用了不同的方法。对他们来说，阅读历史文献意味着将消息来源放在证人席上，并要求他们说出真相或谎言。可以肯定的是，历史学家是运用证据规则和论证规则的专家。尽管如此，他们的方法并没有什么特别复杂的。事实上，他们做的一些最深层次的事情，也是最基本的。

While the high school students responded to the document’s most pronounced feature—the polarizing figure of Christopher Columbus and his changing fortunes in the court of public opinion—the historians employed a different approach. For them, reading a historical document meant putting sources on the stand and demanding that they yield their truths or falsehoods. To be sure, the historians were experts at employing disciplinary canons of evidence and rules of argument. Still, nothing about their approach was particularly complicated. In fact, some of the deepest things they did were also the most basic.

考虑一下他们的开局策略。当历史学家坐下来阅读这份文件时，他们的第一句话是这样的：“好吧，现在是 1892 年了。”

Consider their opening gambit. When historians sat down with the document, their first words were something along the lines of: “Okay, it’s 1892.”

这确实是一个简单的举动——承认哈里森宣言并不是一个从空中回响的自由浮动的话语。对于历史学家来说，这份文件是一件位于独特时间和地点的文物，是历史上独一无二的时刻。对他们来说，这个时刻不是 1492 年，甚至不是 2002 年。而是 1892 年。

A simple move, really—a recognition that the Harrison proclamation was not a free-floating utterance echoing from the ether. To the historians, the document was an artifact located in a unique time and place, a moment in history unlike any other. For them, this moment was not about 1492, or even 2002. It was about 1892.

这就立即提出了一个问题：1892 年意味着什么？

Which immediately raises the question: What does 1892 mean?

哈里森总统的背景

President Harrison in Context

对于历史学家来说，哈里森总统的公告更多的是关于 1892 年，而不是关于哥伦布。因此，他们的问题集中在 19 世纪末而不是 15 世纪。哈里森为什么要表彰哥伦布？他对这位探险家有个人感情吗？哈里森认为哥伦布是一个榜样吗？还是这个举动还有其他一些没有立即引起人们注意的东西？当然，肯定是有什么原因的。

To the historians, President Harrison’s proclamation was more about 1892 than it was about Columbus. Consequently, their questions focused on the late 19th century rather than the 15th. Why would Harrison have honored Columbus? Did he harbor some personal affinity for the explorer? Did Harrison consider Columbus a role model? Or was there something more to this move that doesn’t immediately strike the eye? Surely, there must have been some reason.

历史学家们集思广益，集思广益，讨论了他们对那个时代的历史背景所能记得的一点点（回想一下，没有人是美国历史专家）。事实上，大多数人只能记住他们在高中和本科调查课程中学到的内容。在思考 1890 年代的美国时，他们试图回忆起重大事件、主题和人物：进步时代、边境关闭、弗雷德里克·杰克逊·特纳、民粹主义、威廉·詹宁斯·布莱恩、“黄金十字”演讲——任何高中教科书中都可以找到的参考资料。但当历史学家们继续谈论这个时期时，他们不可避免地谈到了移民的话题。当他们这样做时，灯泡就亮了。

The historians brainstormed what little they could remember about the era’s historical context (recall that none was an expert in American history). Most, in fact, could remember only what they had covered in high school and undergraduate survey courses. In thinking about the United States in the 1890s, they tried to recall major events, themes, and people: the Progressive Era, the closing of the frontier, Frederick Jackson Turner, Populism, William Jennings Bryan, the “Cross of Gold” speech—the kinds of references found in any high school textbook. But as the historians continued to talk about the period, they inevitably arrived at the topic of immigration. When they did, light bulbs clicked on.

19世纪末，美国正在发生翻天覆地的变化。前所未有的移民浪潮一夜之间改变了这个国家（见来源 4.4）。1880 年至 1910 年间的 30 年里，有 1800 万新移民来到美国海岸。他们是不同品种的移民——用当时的术语来说，他们是“斯拉夫人”、“阿尔卑斯人”、“希伯来人”、“伊比利亚人”或“地中海人”。他们大部分来自欧洲，但不是大多数美国移民以前来自的欧洲。他们来自更远的东方和更远的南方。他们皮肤黝黑，说着奇怪的语言。他们的崇拜方式与大多数土著新教徒不同。⁴

At the end of the 19th century, the United States was getting a makeover. Unprecedented waves of immigration transformed the country overnight (see Source 4.4). In the 30 years between 1880 and 1910, 18 million newcomers came to America’s shores. And they were immigrants of a different breed—in the terminology of the time they were “Slavs,” “Alpines,” “Hebrews,” “Iberics,” or “Mediterraneans.” They were from Europe, mostly, but not the Europe most American immigrants had come from previously. They were from farther east and farther south. They were swarthy and spoke strange languages. They worshipped differently from the indigenous Protestant majority.⁴

这些新来者中人数最多的是天主教徒。1880年代初，美国约有30万意大利人，几乎全部是天主教徒。到 1910 年，在 9200 万美国人中，这一数字已达到 200 万。随着意大利人加入过去三十年形成的爱尔兰裔美国人社区，城市天主教徒成为一个有可能左右选举的政治集团。但尽管他们的数量庞大且不断增长，他们仍然是饱受诟病的少数群体。

The most numerous of these new arrivals were Catholics. At the beginning of the 1880s, there were about 300,000 Italians in the United States, almost all of them Catholic. By 1910 that number had reached 2 million out of a population of 92 million Americans. As the Italians joined the Irish American community that had formed during the previous three decades, urban Catholics became a political bloc with the potential to swing elections. But though their numbers were strong and growing, they remained a much-maligned minority.

整个 19 世纪，天主教徒被攻击为非美国的“天主教徒”，被指控对罗马比对美国更忠诚。内战前兴起的“一无所知”运动并向国会派遣了数十名成员，其成立很大程度上是为了“抵制罗马教会的阴险政策和所有其他外国影响”5（见^资料来源4.6） 。

Throughout the 19th century, Catholics were attacked as un-American “papists,” accused of being more loyal to Rome than to the United States. The Know-Nothing movement that sprang up before the Civil War and sent dozens of its members to Congress was founded in large part in order “to resist the insidious policy of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influence”⁵ (see Source 4.6).

天主教徒无论走到哪里都面临着偏见和怀疑，最严重的是在学校和工作场所。天主教移民的反对者包括电报发明者塞缪尔·莫尔斯（Samuel FB Morse）和宗教领袖、哈丽特·比彻·斯托（Harriet Beecher Stowe）的父亲莱曼·比彻（Lyman Beecher）等知名人士。事实上，莫尔斯写了一篇题为《外国阴谋侵犯美国自由》的小册子，警告美国新教徒注意梵蒂冈主教及其美国代理人——爱尔兰和意大利移民策划的控制他们的阴谋。

Catholics faced prejudice and suspicion everywhere they went, most egregiously in schools and at the workplace. Opponents of Catholic immigration included well-known figures like Samuel F. B. Morse, inventor of the telegraph, and Lyman Beecher, a religious leader and father of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Morse, in fact, penned a tract titled “Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States,” which warned Protestant Americans of a plot to control them hatched by the Vatican bishops and their American agents—Irish and Italian immigrants.

当他们的孩子在公立学校受到骚扰并接受新教倾向的课程时，天主教徒的回应是建立独立的教会学校系统。但是，尽管天主教学校没有收到公共资金，但它们仍然与公立学校有明显的不同：它们使用天主教圣经而不是英王钦定版圣经，课程通常由神职人员主持，教学经常用外语进行。移民学生的福利。结果，天主教学校被描绘成反美主义的滋生地。

When their children were harassed in the public schools and subjected to a Protestant-leaning curriculum, Catholics responded by creating separate systems of parochial schools. But even though the Catholic schools received no public money, they remained visibly different from public schools: They used a Catholic bible rather than the King James version, classes were often led by members of the clergy, and instruction was frequently in foreign languages for the benefit of the immigrant pupils. As a result, Catholic schools were portrayed as breeding grounds of anti-Americanism.

在工作场所，情况也大致相同。与许多 19 世纪的移民一样，天主教新移民往往极度贫困，并且愿意为降低工资而工作。因此，他们因降低美国出生工人的赚钱能力而受到蔑视。当城市工厂因罢工而关闭时，业主经常求助于天主教徒作为罢工破坏者，为他们提供临时就业机会，但在本地出生的人眼中进一步羞辱他们。无论他们是爱尔兰人、意大利人还是其他种族，天主教徒经常得到这样的信息：他们不属于这里。

In the workplace the story was much the same. Like many 19th-century immigrants, the Catholic newcomers were often desperately poor and willing to work for reduced wages. Consequently, they were scorned for driving down the earning power of American-born workers. When strikes shut down urban factories, owners frequently turned to Catholics as strikebreakers, providing them with temporary employment but further stigmatizing them in the eyes of the native-born. Whether they were Irish, Italian, or some other ethnic origin, Catholics often got the message that they did not belong.

毫不奇怪，天主教徒渴望提高他们的社会和经济地位，并加班加点地表达他们的爱国主义。许多天主教徒，特别是意大利人和葡萄牙人，都宣扬与新大陆的发现者、虔诚的天主教徒哥伦布的联系。康涅狄格天主教报 1878 年的一篇社论简洁地写道：没有人比这位伟大而高贵的人——虔诚、热心、忠实的天主教徒……克里斯托弗·哥伦布——更值得“怀念”。⁶

Not surprisingly, Catholics were eager to improve their social and economic standing, and worked overtime to express their patriotism. Many Catholics, particularly Italians and Portuguese, promoted their connection to Columbus, discoverer of the New World and a devout Catholic. An 1878 editorial in the Connecticut Catholic put it succinctly: No one was more deserving “of grateful remembrance than the great and noble man—the pious, zealous, faithful Catholic … Christopher Columbus.”⁶

为了提升他们的形象，美国天主教徒以哥伦布的名义设立了一个节日，以他的名字命名学校和医院，并寻求教皇正式封圣他。圣母大学在其主楼委托绘制了 12 幅壁画，以纪念“天主教徒哥伦布”。1882 年，即哈里森宣布这一宣言的 10 年前，来自康涅狄格州纽黑文的天主教徒创立了哥伦布骑士团，该骑士团最终成为美国最大的泛天主教会。天主教兄弟会组织。其成员相信，作为哥伦布的天主教后裔，他们“因我们信仰之一的这一发现而享有所有权利和特权”。⁷因此，尽管有着不同的民族血统和不同的习俗，天主教少数派还是利用他们与这位著名且仍然受人喜爱的探险家的联系，既作为建立泛天主教团结的一种手段，又展示了他们真正的美国人身份（见资料来源4.2和4.3） 。

To further their image, American Catholics created a feast day in Columbus’s honor, named schools and hospitals after him, and sought his official canonization by the Pope. The University of Notre Dame commissioned twelve murals in its Main Building honoring “Columbus the Catholic,” and in 1882, 10 years before Harrison’s proclamation, Catholics from New Haven, Connecticut, founded the Knights of Columbus, which eventually became the nation’s largest pan-Catholic fraternal organization. Its members believed that as Catholic descendants of Columbus, they were “entitled to all the rights and privileges due such a discovery by one of our faith.”⁷ Thus, despite disparate national origins and different customs, the Catholic minority drew on their connection to the famous and still-beloved explorer both as a means of creating pan-Catholic unity and to show how American they really were (see Sources 4.2 and 4.3).

1860 年代中期，纽约人举办了以哥伦布为主题的庆祝活动。旧金山的意大利人于 1869 年庆祝了他们的第一个发现日，费城人于 1876 年在费尔芒特公园竖立了哥伦布雕像。早在 1892 年颁布公告之前，圣路易斯、波士顿、辛辛那提和新奥尔良就已经将哥伦布的庆祝活动列入了日程表。因此，当本杰明·哈里森 (Benjamin Harrison) 宣布 1892 年 10 月 21 日为“发现日”时，他并没有创造任何新东西。相反，根据对全国各地天主教徒基层努力的认可，他批准了许多已经举行的庆祝活动。托马斯·J·施勒雷斯 (Thomas J. Schlereth) 认为，对于天主教徒来说，哥伦布已成为“前所未有的移民时代的美国民族圣人”。⁸

In the mid-1860s New Yorkers hosted Columbus-themed festivities. San Francisco’s Italians celebrated their first Discovery Day in 1869, and Philadelphians erected a statue of Columbus in Fairmount Park in 1876. Well before the 1892 proclamation, celebrations of Columbus were already on the calendar in St. Louis, Boston, Cincinnati, and New Orleans. And so, when Benjamin Harrison proclaimed October 21, 1892, “Discovery Day,” he wasn’t creating anything new. Rather, he was sanctioning the many celebrations already in place, according recognition to grassroots efforts by Catholics around the country. According to Thomas J. Schlereth, for Catholics, Columbus had become “an American ethnic saint in an era of unprecedented immigration.”⁸

该公告也有政治角度。哈里森正在为自己的政治生命而战。通过正式承认哥伦布，他试图吸引大批新选民加入。因此，“发现日”可能与其说是英雄崇拜，不如说是经过考验的真实政党政治。哈里森对哥伦布的公开认可是对一个特殊利益群体——城市天主教徒——的精明的政治诉求，他相信这些人有能力使选举对他有利。

The proclamation had a political angle, too. Harrison was engaged in a battle for his political life. By formally recognizing Columbus, he sought to bring legions of new voters into the fold. Thus, “Discovery Day” may have been less about hero worship than tried and true party politics. Harrison’s public recognition of Columbus was an astute political appeal to a special-interest group—urban Catholics—whom he believed had the power to swing the election in his favor.

这次选举充满了许多奇怪的曲折，现任哈里森与前总统格罗弗·克利夫兰对决。克利夫兰成为自内战以来第一位当选总统的民主党人，尽管在 1888 年以微弱优势赢得普选，但他在连任竞选中输给了哈里森。四年后，同样的两个对手陷入了连任之战。现任总统和前任领导人都不是最受欢迎的人。

It was an election with many strange twists, pitting the incumbent Harrison against Grover Cleveland, himself a former president. After becoming the first Democrat elected to the office since the Civil War, Cleveland lost his 1888 reelection bid to Harrison, despite narrowly winning the popular vote. Four years later, the same two opponents were locked in a battle for reelection. Neither the sitting president nor the former leader was a runaway favorite.

由于克利夫兰的人气回升以及第三方候选人詹姆斯·B·韦弗的支持，哈里森在传统的共和党中西部面临着一场艰苦的战斗。为了确保这些州以及东部城市的安全，哈里森和他的共和党盟友决定全力以赴争取移民选票。

Thanks to Cleveland’s resurgent popularity, and third-party candidate James B. Weaver, Harrison faced an uphill battle in the traditionally Republican Midwest. Looking to secure those states, along with the Eastern cities, Harrison and his Republican allies decided to go all out in their pursuit of the immigrant vote.

在中西部，他们向斯堪的纳维亚人和德裔美国人以及东部的爱尔兰人和意大利人求爱。为了吸引经常用母语授课的美国族裔，哈里森公开主张地方对公立和教会学校进行控制。为了吸引爱尔兰天主教徒，共和党组织了爱尔兰-美国保护关税联盟和爱尔兰-美国共和联盟，并在 1892 年的共和党纲领中加入了对爱尔兰自治的支持——如果有的话，这也是一种象征性的姿态。虽然承认哥伦布是对所有天主教徒的呼吁，但它特别针对意大利裔美国人，自从他们来到新世界以来，他们就一直庆祝克里斯托弗·哥伦布为自己的人。

In the Midwest they courted Scandinavian- and German-Americans, as well as the Irish and Italian groups in the East. To appeal to ethnic Americans who were often taught in their mother tongue, Harrison openly advocated local control of public and parochial schools. To appeal to Irish Catholics, Republicans organized the Irish-American Protective Tariff League and the Irish-American Republican League, inserting an endorsement for Irish home rule in the 1892 Republican Platform—a symbolic gesture if there ever was one. While recognition of Columbus was an appeal to all Catholics, it particularly targeted Italian-Americans, who had been celebrating Cristoforo Colombo as their own for as long as they had been in the New World.

最终，哈里森的“发现日”在选民前往投票站前不到三周的时间庆祝了。尽管时机成熟，此举仍不足以确保哈里森的胜利。克利夫兰以压倒性优势重返白宫。

In the end, Harrison’s “Discovery Day” was celebrated less than 3 weeks before the voters went to the polls. Despite its timing, the move was not enough to secure Harrison’s victory. Cleveland was returned to the White House in a landslide.

尽管“发现日”未能带来哈里森的第二个任期，但事实证明它本身是成功的。伴随着全国各地庆祝哥伦布日的一系列爱国活动，其中一项后来成为学校的持久仪式：由弗朗西斯·贝拉米撰写的效忠誓言。1892 年的发现日，1000 万学童自豪地宣誓效忠美国，无论其宗教信仰或国籍如何。虽然这种做法更具象征意义，而不是实质性的，但在移民寻求展示爱国主义的时代，它引起了强烈的共鸣。对于那些被指控为梵蒂冈外国代理人的人来说尤其如此。这一承诺很快就成为课堂上的日常活动。

Even though “Discovery Day” failed to produce Harrison’s second term, it proved to be a success in its own right. A slate of patriotic activities accompanied celebrations of Columbus Day across the nation, including one that would become an enduring school ritual: the Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy. On Discovery Day, 1892, 10 million schoolchildren proudly swore their loyalty to the United States, regardless of religion or national origin. While the practice was more symbolic than substantive, it resonated powerfully at a time when immigrants sought to display their patriotism. This was especially true for those facing the charge of being foreign agents of the Vatican. The pledge soon became a daily classroom fixture.

尽管其他发现日活动并没有像“哥伦布日之歌”那样具有持久力，但庆祝哥伦布的活动确实如此。1905 年，科罗拉多州州长杰西·F·麦克唐纳 (Jesse F. McDonald) 宣布设立第一个正式的非百年哥伦布日，这一做法后来被其他州效仿。三十年后，在哥伦布骑士团的敦促下，富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统和国会将哥伦布日定为联邦假日，并将官方庆祝活动移至 10 月 12 日。

Although other Discovery Day activities didn’t share the pledge’s staying power, including the “Song of Columbus Day,” celebrating Columbus certainly did. In 1905, Colorado Governor Jesse F. McDonald declared the first official noncentennial Columbus Day, a practice taken up by other states. Thirty years later, at the urging of the Knights of Columbus, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress made Columbus Day a federal holiday, moving the official celebration to October 12.

谜题、问题和历史进程

Puzzles, Questions, and the Process of History

当他们第一次看到哈里森公告时，许多学生都对1492年如此着迷，他们没有注意到这份文件是在400年后出现的。将哈里森的宣言置于 1892 年的背景中会改变读者探索哥伦布日故事的下一步。

When they first encounter the Harrison proclamation, many students become so fixated on 1492, they never notice that this document appeared 400 years later. Putting Harrison’s declaration in the context of 1892 changes a reader’s next steps in exploring the story of Columbus Day.

阅读发现日公告的历史学家想要了解这个历史谜题。他们想知道哈里森的声明是否有先例，发现日是否引发了反对或反天主教的强烈抵制。他们很想知道在联邦宣布之前其他州是否已将 10 月 21 日定为假日，如果是，这些州是否有大量天主教徒。最后，他们想知道该活动如何以及何时从一项公告转变为全国性的庆祝活动。

The historians who read the Discovery Day proclamation wanted to understand this historical puzzle. They wanted to know if there was a precedent to Harrison’s declaration, whether Discovery Day had ignited opposition or anti-Catholic backlash. They were curious to know if other states had made October 21 a holiday before the federal declaration, and if so, whether those states had large Catholic populations. Finally, they wanted to know how and when the event had gone from a proclamation to a national celebration.

在历史性地思考这份文件时，历史学家最终走上了与高中生不同的道路。当学生们重新审视他们对哥伦布的了解并重复政治正确的口号时，历史学家发现自己正在面对谜题和问题，以及未经探索和未知的事物。结果，他们面临着更加批判性、更具创造性和更具历史性的思考的挑战。

In thinking historically about the document, historians ended up going down a different path from the high school students. While the students revisited what they already knew about Columbus and repeated politically correct slogans, historians found themselves dealing with puzzles and questions, the unexplored and the unknown. As a result, they were challenged to think more critically, more creatively, and more historically.

最终，历史学家发现了新的信息——不仅关于移民和身份政治，还关于哥伦布不断演变的遗产。无论今天的立场如何，19 世纪末的美国人对哥伦布都抱有一致的积极看法。了解了这一点，学生就不太可能仅仅通过现在的视角来解释哥伦布的庆祝活动。通过将哈里森的宣言等文件放在上下文中，一个新世界打开了——一个充满未解答的问题和看待过去的新方式的世界。

In the end, the historians uncovered new information—not only about immigration and identity politics but also about Columbus’s evolving legacy. Whatever positions they may have today, in the late 19th century Americans held a uniformly positive view of Columbus. Understanding that, students are less likely to interpret celebrations of Columbus solely through the lens of the present. By putting documents like Harrison’s proclamation into context, a new world opens up—one filled with unanswered questions and new ways of looking at the past.

为什么要教授“发现日”？

Why Teach About “Discovery Day”?

教授如何理解上下文中的来源的机会。许多学生被发现日文件中哥伦布的名字蒙蔽了双眼，以至于永远无法忘记它。另一方面，历史学家通过将文献定位在时间和地点来开始阅读。他们首先“来源”并“背景化”一份文件，询问该文件的作者、出现的地点、发布时间以及当前的紧迫问题是什么。通过提出这些问题，历史学家可以更好地理解文献的重要性及其作者的真正动机。

An Opportunity to Teach About Understanding Sources in Context. Many students are so blinded by Columbus’s name in the Discovery Day document that they never get past it. Historians, on the other hand, begin their reading by situating a document in place and time. They begin by “sourcing” and “contextualizing” a document, asking who wrote it, where it appeared, when it was published, and what the burning issues of the day were. By asking such questions, historians develop a better understanding of a document’s significance and the real motives of its author.

就发现日公告而言，许多学生利用 20 世纪对哥伦布航行的解释来批评哈里森的公告。他们不可避免地忽视了该文件是在 1892 年签署的，这一事实引发了一系列问题，即公众人物为何要发布公告。关于发现日的教学提供了一个帮助学生在时间和地点定位文档的机会。它可以向他们展示，发展历史思维习惯将如何本能地将他们指向文档创建的背景。

In the case of the Discovery Day proclamation, many students drew on 20th-century interpretations of Columbus’s voyage to critique Harrison’s proclamation. Inevitably, they overlooked that the document was signed in 1892, a fact that invites a host of questions about why public figures issue proclamations when they do. Teaching about Discovery Day provides an opportunity to help students situate documents in time and place. It can show them how developing historical habits of mind will instinctively point them to the context of a document’s creation.

探索历史用途的机会。历史不断地被赋予各种用途。同一历史人物或事件在不同时期可能被用于不同目的。当新信息出现时，就会发生这种变化，从而需要重新评估。有时，政治和文化发展的变化让我们重新审视之前的解释。就“发现日”而言，两种力量都在发挥作用。一方面，当今的学术界对哥伦布的批评比 19 世纪甚至 20 世纪更加强烈。另一方面，虽然现代的哥伦布庆祝活动被认为对原住民漠不关心，但在 1892 年，它们却是接触饱受诟病的城市天主教徒的一种方式。

A Chance to Explore the Uses to Which History Is Put. History is constantly being put to various uses; the same historical figure or event may be used for different purposes at different times. Such changes can occur when new information comes to light, producing the need for reevaluation. At other times, shifts in political and cultural developments make us look anew at our previous interpretations. In the case of Discovery Day, both forces are at work. On one hand, present-day scholarship is more critical of Columbus than it was in the 19th or even 20th centuries. On the other, while modern celebrations of Columbus are seen as insensitive to native peoples, in 1892 they were a way of reaching out to the maligned urban Catholic.

一个教授随时间变化的机会。学生们经常假设他们出生的世界的布局就是事物一直以来的样子。很难想象美国的天主教徒会持续面临歧视和不忠指控。如今，新教和天主教之间的区别已经不再重要，除非它们涉及堕胎或同性婚姻等问题。但即便如此，天主教徒的投票也并非铁板一块：他们的立场与来自其他宗教的美国人的立场有相当大的重叠。19 世纪对美国天主教徒收到来自罗马的游行命令的恐惧似乎是怪人边缘团体的产物，对公共生活几乎没有影响。尽管如此，直到 1960 年，总统候选人约翰·F·肯尼迪 (John F. Kennedy) 仍不得不为自己辩护，反对有关他的天主教信仰使他不适合担任总统的指控。来源 4.7）。穿越到 1890 年代可以帮助学生了解美国从一个对外来者微弱宽容的新教国家发展成为一个拥有广泛宗教信仰的多元文化国家的历程。

A Chance to Teach About Change over Time. Students often assume that the layout of the world into which they are born is the way things have always been. An America in which Catholics faced constant discrimination and charges of disloyalty is hard to imagine. The distinctions between Protestant and Catholic rarely matter today, except as they touch on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. But even here, the Catholic vote is hardly monolithic: There is considerable overlap between their stances and those held by Americans from other religions. The 19th-century fear that American Catholics were receiving marching orders from Rome seems like the stuff of wacko fringe groups with little influence on public life. Still, as late as 1960, presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy was obliged to defend himself against charges that his Catholicism rendered him unfit to be president (Source 4.7). An excursion into the 1890s helps students understand how far America has come in its journey from being a Protestant country that faintly tolerated outsiders to a multicultural nation with a wide range of religious faiths.

连接到今天。发现日展示了总统政纲如何应对美国的人口剧变，预示着一种已成为政治格局中固定策略的策略：向不同选民伸出援手并争取选票。哈里森的竞选活动打开了一扇窗，让我们了解为什么政客们会吸引来自不同背景（种族、民族和宗教）的选民，以及随着美国变得更加多元化，这种做法是如何增加的。考虑到哈里森在 1890 年代的动机，不禁让人对当今的移民和总统政治产生疑问，包括当代候选人如何调整自己的信息以讨好不同群体。

Connection to Today. Discovery Day shows how a presidential platform addressed the demographic upheavals of America, prefiguring a tactic that has become a fixture in the political landscape: reaching out and courting votes among varied constituencies. Harrison’s campaign opens a window on why politicians court voters from different backgrounds—racial, ethnic, and religious—and how this practice has increased as America has become more diverse. Considering Harrison’s motives in the 1890s raises questions about today’s immigration and presidential politics, including how contemporary candidates tailor their message to curry favor with different groups.

您将如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

场景 1（1-2 小时课程）。哪个日期最重要，1492 年还是 1892 年？学习将文档放在上下文中，并了解是什么影响了哈里森发表“发现日”宣言。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). What date matters most, 1492 or 1892? Learn to put a document in context and understand what influenced Harrison to make his “Discovery Day” proclamation.

要求学生阅读发现日公告（来源 4.1），但首先删除文档的日期和作者。让学生写下他们对文件的回应，并记下他们会提出的有关文件历史背景的问题。除非您已经完成了一些将文档放在上下文中的工作，否则许多学生会专注于哥伦布的麻烦遗产，而从未想过询问文档何时编写或出于什么目的。在简要讨论学生的回答后，向他们提供文档的日期和作者，并要求他们写下这些新信息可能引发的想法。

Ask students to read the Discovery Day proclamation (Source 4.1), but first eliminate the document’s date and author. Have students write down their responses to the document and jot down questions they would ask about its historical context. Unless you’ve already done some work on placing documents in context, many students will zoom in on Columbus’s troubled legacy and never think to ask when the document was written or for what purpose. After briefly discussing students’ responses, give them the document’s date and author, and ask them to write down ideas that these new pieces of information may prompt.

指出 1892 年是选举年后，将学生分成小组，思考哈里森宣布“发现日”为全国性假日的动机（参见工具 4.1）。为每组提供资料来源4.1、4.2、4.3和4.4。根据您有多少时间，提供其他文档，例如Source 4.5。布置一篇文章，让学生解释哈里森为何发布“发现日”公告，以及 1892 年的事件如何影响了该文件的解读方式。

After pointing out that 1892 was an election year, divide students into groups to consider Harrison’s motives in proclaiming “Discovery Day” a national holiday (see Tool 4.1). Give each group Sources 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Depending on how much time you have, provide additional documents, such as Source 4.5. Assign an essay in which students explain why Harrison issued his “Discovery Day” proclamation when he did, and how the events of 1892 shape how the document should be read.

场景 2（2-4 小时课程）。关注上下文。此场景是前一个场景的扩展，旨在让学生更多地练习在上下文中阅读文档。

Scenario 2 (2–4 Hour Lesson). Focus on context. This scenario expands on the previous one, and is designed to give students more practice reading documents in context.

首先，使用资料来源4.1、4.2、4.3、4.4和4.5引导他们进行上述分析和讨论。在这种情况下，学生将面临反天主教偏见的问题，正如内战时期有关无知党的摘录（来源 4.6）和约翰·F·肯尼迪 1960 年面对反天主教领袖问题的演讲中所见-on（来源 4.7）。考虑让学生比较不同时期的移民政策问题。问题在哪些方面相同和不同？让学生有机会思考过去一百年来宗教问题如何影响有关移民的辩论。

First, lead them through the analysis and discussion described above, using Sources 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. In this scenario, students will confront the issue of anti-Catholic prejudice, as seen in the Civil War-era excerpt about the Know-Nothing Party (Source 4.6) and John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech that confronted the issue of anti-Catholicism head-on (Source 4.7). Consider having students compare issues of immigration policy across time. In what ways are issues the same and different? Give students an opportunity to consider how the issue of religion has influenced debates about immigration during the last hundred years.

或者，更深入地了解移民的特定时代和哈里森的公告。一旦学生熟悉了 1890 年代更广泛的问题，就可以阅读本章开头雅各布对哈里森公告的回应。请他们考虑雅各布缺少什么。让学生写一篇文章，说明高中生雅各布在评论哈里森公告时错过了什么。

Alternately, go deeper with the particular era of immigration and Harrison’s proclamation. Once students are acquainted with the broader issues of the 1890s, read them Jacob’s response to the Harrison proclamation at the beginning of this chapter. Ask them to consider what Jacob is missing. Have students write an essay about what Jacob, the high school student, missed when he commented on the Harrison proclamation.

场景 3（1-2 小时课程）。这个场景将帮助学生分析不同时代的社论漫画。我们使用托马斯·纳斯特（Thomas Nast）的插图（来源4.8），他不仅是美国最著名的社论漫画家之一，而且还是使大象和驴成为两大政党象征的主要人物。

Scenario 3 (1–2 Hour Lesson). This scenario will help students analyze an editorial cartoon from a different era. We use an illustration by Thomas Nast (Source 4.8), who was not only one of the most famous editorial cartoonists in America, but also the man largely responsible for making the elephant and donkey the symbols of two major political parties.

我们有时认为卡通很容易让学生理解，因为它们通过图片而不是文字表达观点。虽然这对于当代图像来说可能是正确的，但试图解码遥远过去的卡通则是另一回事。今天，乔治·W·布什那张巨大的下垂的耳朵，正是使图像变得易于理解的特征，而当学生试图解读来自不同时代的社论漫画时，正是这些特征让学生们感到困惑。1870 年读者所认识的代码和符号对于今天的学生（通常也是我们）来说通常是难以理解的。

We sometimes assume that cartoons are easy for students to understand because they make their point in pictures, not in words. While this might hold true for contemporary images, trying to decode a cartoon from the distant past is a different story. The very features that make an image easy to understand today—George W. Bush’s huge floppy ears—are what will trip up students when trying to decipher an editorial cartoon from a different era. Codes and symbols that readers would recognize in 1870 will often be indecipherable to today’s students (and often to us as well).

社论漫画采用了许多学生不熟悉的一系列惯例。为此，我们开发了助记工具“BASIC”（工具4.2）来帮助学生破解漫画的密码。

Editorial cartoons employ a series of conventions that are unfamiliar to many students. For this purpose, we have developed a mnemonic tool, “B.A.S.I.C.” (Tool 4.2), to help students crack a cartoon’s code.

社论漫画的目标不同于寻求娱乐或娱乐的普通漫画（例如加里·拉尔森或呆伯特）。如果社论漫画让我们微笑，那只是副作用，而不是主要目标。首先，社论漫画传达的信息带有尖锐的政治或社会批评。社论漫画有其道理，有时甚至非常尖锐。

The goal of an editorial cartoon is different from regular cartoons (think Gary Larson or Dilbert) that seek to amuse or entertain. If an editorial cartoon makes us smile, it’s a side effect, not the primary goal. First and foremost, editorial cartoons convey messages that carry a trenchant political or social critique. Editorial cartoons have a point, sometimes a very sharp one.

Source 4.8显示了纳斯特最著名的漫画之一《美国恒河》，该漫画于 1871 年 9 月 30 日发表在《哈珀周刊》上，并于 1875 年以略有不同的形式出版。尽管它无处不在（该漫画出现在数十个网站上） ），如果没有精心搭建的入口进入这个陌生的世界，很少有学生能够解开它的含义。

Source 4.8 displays one of Nast’s most famous cartoons, “The American River Ganges,” published in Harper’s Weekly on September 30, 1871, and again, in a slightly different form, in 1875. Despite its ubiquity (the cartoon appears on dozens of websites), few students will be able to unlock its meaning without a carefully scaffolded entree to this unfamiliar world.

《美国恒河》出现在关于纽约州天主教学校公共资助的辩论中。1869 年，威廉·“老板”·特威德（William“Boss”Tweed）起草了一项法案，允许纽约市资助拥有 200 名或更多学生的教会学校（一般来说，这仅适用于天主教学校，因为新教和犹太教学校通常要小得多）。当媒体得知特威德的计划时，他们用“教皇”的反天主教嘲讽来涂油和粉饰它。尽管纽约立法机构中的共和党多数派否决了该法案，但木已成舟：人们担心天主教徒决心从公立学校拿走资金，以推行险恶的“罗马”议程。⁹

“The American River Ganges” appeared during a debate over public funding of Catholic schools in New York State. In 1869, William “Boss” Tweed, whose powerful Democratic headquarters, Tammany Hall, symbolized graft and corruption, authored a bill to allow New York City to fund parochial schools of 200 students or more (in general, this applied only to Catholic schools, as Protestant and Jewish schools were typically much smaller). When the press learned of Tweed’s scheme, they tarred and feathered it with anti-Catholic taunts of “Popery.” Although the Republican majority in the New York legislature killed the bill, the die was cast: People feared that Catholics were determined to take money away from the public schools to promote a sinister “Roman” agenda.⁹

在要求学生解答“美国恒河”这个谜题之前，首先要回顾一下 BASIC 缩写词（工具 4.2）。首先，尝试在当代社论漫画上进行实践，其含义对于现代观众来说更加清晰。在我们的教学中，我们发现三部分序列在解码卡通、艺术品和照片等视觉证据时非常有用。我们首先要求学生描述他们所看到的内容，并密切关注图像的细节。通过将其作为全班活动进行，学生们可以集体看到比他们个人第一次看到的东西更多的东西。一旦学生们耗尽了图像的细节，我们就会继续解释我们所看到的内容。本阶段工具4.3让学生熟悉纳斯特使用的符号和指示符（主教帽、圣彼得大教堂等）将是至关重要的。

Before asking students to tackle the riddle that is “The American River Ganges,” begin by going over the B.A.S.I.C. acronym (Tool 4.2). First, try practicing it on contemporary editorial cartoons, whose meanings are more transparent to modern audiences. In our teaching, we have found that a three-part sequence is useful when decoding visual evidence such as cartoons, artwork, and photographs. We begin by asking students to describe what they see, staying close to the details of the image. By doing this as a whole-class activity, students can collectively glimpse more than whatever first meets their individual eyes. Once students have exhausted the details of the image, we move on to interpreting what we see. For this stage Tool 4.3 will be crucial, familiarizing students with symbols and indicators used by Nast (mitres, St. Peter’s Basilica, and so on).

在最后阶段——推测——学生们准备好解决漫画家的论点。工具 4.4包含指导学生完成此分析的问题。使用这组问题将使学生能够对“美国恒河”进行观察，而不会形成不必要的结论或解释。

During the final stage—speculating—students are ready to tackle the cartoonist’s argument. Tool 4.4 includes questions that guide students through this analysis. Using this set of questions will allow students to make observations about “The American River Ganges” without unnecessarily forming conclusions or interpretations.

引起学生注意漫画中的鳄鱼：它们是真的吗？他们穿什么？确保学生注意到岸上的男孩和后面挤着小孩子的男孩与背景中的其他孩子之间的区别。他们注意到那本书从大男孩的口袋里伸出来了吗？书上说了什么？最后，当学生思考漫画的含义时，帮助建立恒河和天主教之间的联系（即恒河对于印度教徒来说是神圣的，而印度教徒认为这种宗教是外来的和“野蛮的”） 。

Draw students’ attention to the crocodiles shown in the cartoon: Are they real? What are they wearing? Make sure students note the difference between the boy onshore with smaller children huddled behind him, and the other children in the background. Do they notice the book protruding from the older boy’s pocket? What does the book say? Finally, when students speculate about the meaning of the cartoon, help make the connection between the Ganges River and Catholicism (i.e., the Ganges is sacred to the Hindus, a religion considered by many 19th-century Americans to be foreign and “barbaric”).

来源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源4.1：哈里森的公告（修改后）

SOURCE 4.1: HARRISON’S PROCLAMATION (MODIFIED)

资料来源：本杰明·哈里森总统 1892 年 7 月 21 日的公告。

Source: President Benjamin Harrison’s Proclamation, July 21, 1892.

 

 

资料来源4.2：美国的天主教

SOURCE 4.2: CATHOLICISM IN AMERICA

资料来源：摘录，作者不详，“克里斯托弗·哥伦布——新大陆的发现者”，康涅狄格天主教，1878 年 5 月 25 日，4。

Source: Excerpt, unknown author, “Christopher Columbus—Discoverer of the New World,” Connecticut Catholic, May 25, 1878, 4.

 

 

资料来源：摘自 Daniel Colwell，《哥伦布骑士团：第一次骑士团会议》，The Columbiad，1910 年 3 月。

Source: Excerpt from Daniel Colwell, “The Knights of Columbus: First Meeting of the Order,” The Columbiad, March 1910.

 

 

资料来源：美国人口普查局。网址：http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab04.html

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab04.html

 

 

资料来源4.5：哈里森演讲（改编版）

SOURCE 4.5: HARRISON SPEECH (ADAPTED)

资料来源：本杰明·哈里森 1887 年 4 月 8 日在印第安纳波利斯发表的竞选演讲。

Source: Campaign speech made by Benjamin Harrison in Indianapolis, April 8, 1887.

（原来的）

(Original)

也许有人会说，我们今晚所做的事情有点无礼——英国议会讨论的有关爱尔兰的悬而未决的立法问题，并不是英国议会讨论的适当主题。美国城镇会议…… 我们没有向英国政府提出正式交涉。它可以注意到或不注意到我们在这里所做的和所说的，但我们仍然会行使说出来的自由……。我们来这里并不是要建议英国承认爱尔兰独立……。我们在这里只是想说，在我们作为美国公民看来，爱尔兰需要的不是强制，不是警察，不是拿着滑膛枪和刺刀的士兵；但自由主义法律倾向于将她的人民从长达几个世纪的不良政府的后果中解放出来，

It may be suggested that we are engaged to-night in an act that savors somewhat of impertinence—that the question of the pending legislation relating to Ireland, which is the subject of discussion in the British Parliament, is not a proper subject of discussion in an American town meeting…. We have no official representations to make to the British government. It can take notice or not of what we do and say here, but all the same we will exercise the liberty of saying it…. We are not here to suggest to Great Britain that she shall concede Irish independence…. We are here simply to say that, in our opinion as American citizens, what Ireland needs is not coercion, is not the constable, is not the soldier with musket and bayonet; but liberal laws, tending to emancipate her people from the results of long centuries of ill government, and that when this British Ministry starts in the direction of coercion, and postpones suggestions for reform until a coercion bill has been enacted, it is traveling in the wrong direction.

 

 

来源4.6 ：无知党_ _ _

SOURCE 4.6: KNOW-NOTHING PARTY

资料来源：北美合众国国家委员会（又称“一无所知党”）第二条。大约 1855 年。

Source: Article II of the National Council of the United States of North America, otherwise known as the Know-Nothing Party. Circa 1855.

资料来源4.7 ：肯尼迪演讲

SOURCE 4.7: KENNEDY SPEECH

资料来源：摘自总统候选人约翰·肯尼迪 (John F. Kennedy) 1960 年 9 月 12 日的演讲。

Source: Excerpt from a speech given by presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1960.

 

 

来源：Thomas Nast，“美国恒河”，Harper's Weekly，1871 年 9 月 30 日（另见http://www.aoh61.com/images/ir_cartoons/river_ganges.htm）。

Source: Thomas Nast, “The American River Ganges,” Harper’s Weekly, September 30, 1871 (see also http://www.aoh61.com/images/ir_cartoons/river_ganges.htm).

 

 

工具4.1 ：将来源置于上下文中

TOOL 4.1: PUTTING A SOURCE IN CONTEXT

---

说明：使用资料 4.2 – 4.5帮助您了解哈里森为何在 1892 年设立发现日。

Directions: Use Sources 4.2–4.5 to help you understand why Harrison established Discovery Day in 1892.

工具4.2 ：基本

TOOL 4.2: B.A.S.I.C.

---

基础：解读社论漫画的步骤

B.A.S.I.C.: Steps to Interpreting Editorial Cartoons

 

 

编辑漫画使用将密集信息打包到狭小空间中的功能。首字母缩略词 BASIC 提醒您在探索不同时间的卡通片时要寻找什么。

Editorial cartoons use features that pack dense information into a small space. The acronym B.A.S.I.C. reminds you what to look for when exploring a cartoon from a different time.

B：背景知识

B: Background Knowledge

漫画家做出了某些假设，其中之一是他们和他们的读者共享一个共同的世界。在一部关于国土安全部特工脱衣搜查的漫画中，艺术家可以描绘两座燃烧的建筑物，我们会立即认出它们是世贸中心双子塔。这些功能是如此基本，以至于我们认为它们是理所当然的，但在另一代人左右，它们就不再是理所当然的了。当我们解读一百年前的漫画时，我们常常缺乏必要的背景知识来破解漫画的密码。研究漫画出现的时期可以帮助你弄清楚艺术家想表达什么。

Cartoonists make certain assumptions, and one of them is that they and their readers share a common world. In a cartoon about strip searches by Homeland Security agents, an artist can depict two burning buildings, and we’ll immediately recognize them as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. These features are so basic that we take them for granted, yet in another generation or so they won’t be. When we interpret a cartoon from a hundred years ago, we often lack necessary background knowledge to crack the cartoon’s code. Studying the period in which a cartoon appeared can help you figure out what the artist is trying to say.

答：论证

A: Argument

BASIC 中的 A 代表“论证”。尽管社论漫画可以让我们开怀大笑，但它们有一个更严肃的目标：传达一个观点并说服我们采取一个立场。当你看漫画时，问问自己：“艺术家想让我想到什么？” 尝试用简短的陈述陈述艺术家的观点或论点，例如，“从这幅漫画中，可以清楚地看出作者认为对外国石油的依赖将毁掉美国。”

The A in B.A.S.I.C. stands for “argument.” Although editorial cartoons can make us laugh or smile, they have a more serious goal: to convey a point and convince us to adopt a position. When you look at a cartoon, ask yourself, “What does the artist want me to think?” Try to state the artist’s point, or thesis, in a short statement, e.g., “From this cartoon, it is clear that the author thinks dependence on foreign oil will ruin America.”

S：象征主义

S: Symbolism

卡通片使用符号将大量信息打包到一个框架中。符号是指向比其本身更广泛的事物的名称。新月、六角星和十字架不仅仅是月亮、星星或几何图形。它们分别代表整个宗教文明：伊斯兰教、犹太教和基督教。符号是每个社论漫画家工具箱的一部分。

Cartoons use symbols to pack a lot of information into a single frame. Symbols are designations that point to something broader than themselves. A crescent, a six-pointed star, and a cross are more than moons, stars, or geometric figures. They stand for entire religious civilizations: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, respectively. Symbols are part of the toolbox of every editorial cartoonist.

一：指标

I: Indicators

但符号不能单独做到这一点。漫画家使用指标或书面标签来为我们指明某个方向。通常，指标直接告诉我们某物代表什么（并且可能是漫画中使用的唯一词语）。除了漫画的标题和说明之外，还要留意其他指示符，有时可以在漫画正文中的小字中找到这些指示符。

But symbols can’t do it alone. Cartoonists use indicators, or written labels, that point us in a certain direction. Often, indicators tell us directly what something stands for (and may be the only words used in the cartoon). In addition to the cartoon’s title and caption, be on the lookout for other indicators, sometimes found in small print in the body of the cartoon itself.

C：漫画

C: Caricature

漫画遵循这句格言：“值得陈述的事情值得夸大”，漫画就是这种夸张的例证。当我们遇到交通堵塞时，我们可能会说：“我们前面有一百万辆车！离开这里需要很多年的时间。” 本着同样的精神，漫画家将糟糕的政府政策比作十大瘟疫之一，或者将年老的候选人比作千岁老人。漫画还可以采用刻板印象、扭曲的图像来夸大整个群体的特征。这些图像，尤其是来自不同时代的图像，在我们现代人看来往往是种族主义或偏执的。

Cartoons follow the adage, “What’s worth stating is worth overstating,” and caricature exemplifies such exaggeration. When we’re stuck in a traffic jam, we might say, “There are a million cars in front of us! It’ll take years to get out of here.” In the same spirit, cartoonists compare a bad government policy to one of the Ten Plagues, or an aging candidate to the Thousand-Year-Old Man. Caricature can also employ stereotypes, distorted images that exaggerate the features of entire groups. Such images, particularly those from a different era, often seem racist or bigoted to our modern eyes.

 

 

工具4.3 ：解读托马斯·纳斯特的“美洲恒河” _ _ _ _ _

TOOL 4.3: DECODING THOMAS NAST’S “THE AMERICAN RIVER GANGES”

资料来源：“贝拿勒斯：从高止山脉拍摄的景色”，Elisee Reclus，《地球及其居民》，1884 年。

Source: “Benares: View Taken from the Ghats,” Elisee Reclus, The Earth and Its Inhabitants, 1884.

 

 

工具4.4 ：托马斯·纳斯特的《美洲恒河》_ _ _ _

TOOL 4.4: THOMAS NAST’S “THE AMERICAN RIVER GANGES”

---

1. 仔细观察鳄鱼出没的水域。鳄鱼头上有什么？这象征着什么？
2. Look carefully at the crocodile-infested waters. What do the crocodiles have on their heads? What does this symbolize?
3. 这部漫画中的鳄鱼代表什么？
4. What do the crocodiles in this cartoon represent?
5. 是谁把孩子扔下悬崖的？
6. Who are the people casting the children off the cliff?
7. 被拖上绞刑架的女人是谁？
8. Who is the woman being dragged to the gallows?
9. 这部漫画中有两栋建筑；两者都包含“指示符”来帮助读者正确理解漫画。这些指标是什么？它们告诉您有关卡通的信息是什么？
10. There are two buildings in this cartoon; both contain “indicators” to help the reader correctly interpret the cartoon. What are these indicators and what do they tell you about the cartoon’s message?
11. 这位漫画家的论点是什么？他希望读者看完这部漫画后想到什么？
12. What is the argument of this cartoonist? What does he want the reader to think after viewing this cartoon?
13. 您认为纳斯特为什么将漫画命名为“美国恒河”？通过将天主教符号与印度印度教徒神圣的河流联系起来，您认为漫画家希望人们如何看待美国天主教徒？
14. Why do you think Nast titled the cartoon “The American River Ganges”? By connecting Catholic symbols with a river sacred to the Hindus in India, what do you think the cartoonist wanted people to think about American Catholics?

建议资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/immigration/

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/immigration/

这是由美国国会图书馆创建和维护的主要文档集“新美国人面临的移民挑战”的主页。除了音频和视频片段、照片和漫画等主要来源材料外，还提供教师材料。

This is the home page of a primary document set, “Immigration Challenges for New Americans,” created and maintained by the Library of Congress. In addition to primary source materials like audio and video footage, photographs, and cartoons, teacher materials are available as well.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/immigration/index.cfm

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/immigration/index.cfm

斯蒂芬·明茨 (Stephen Mintz) 的数字历史网站上的此页面提供了一系列有关美国移民历史的资源。

This page from Stephen Mintz’s Digital History website offers a range of resources about the history of immigration to the United States.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook28.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook28.html

保罗·哈尔索尔 (Paul Halsall) 的《互联网现代史资料手册》中的此页面列出了关注美国各族裔移民的文档和网站链接。

This page from Paul Halsall’s Internet Modern History Sourcebook lists document and website links that focus on the American immigration of various ethnic groups.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_ century/harris.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/harris.asp

阅读本杰明·哈里森在阿瓦隆项目上的就职演说，阿瓦隆项目是耶鲁大学法律和政治文件的在线档案馆。

Read Benjamin Harrison’s inaugural address at The Avalon Project, an online archive of legal and political documents housed at Yale University.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/sia/cartoon.htm

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/sia/cartoon.htm

了解历史学家如何解读另一幅托马斯·纳斯特漫画，请访问 History Matters，这是一个由乔治梅森大学历史与新媒体中心开发和维护的网站。

See how a historian interprets another Thomas Nast cartoon at History Matters, a website developed and maintained by the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.

http://cartoons.osu.edu/nast/portfolio.htm

http://cartoons.osu.edu/nast/portfolio.htm

在此由俄亥俄州立大学主办的网站上查找其他托马斯·纳斯特漫画。

Find other Thomas Nast cartoons on this site hosted by Ohio State University.

在 1921 年写给托马斯·爱迪生的信中，来自堪萨斯州的家庭主妇 WC Lathrop 夫人感谢发明家为她家提供了电力和省时的电器（参见来源 5.1 ）。¹她在堪萨斯州诺顿写道：

In a 1921 letter to Thomas Edison, Mrs. W. C. Lathrop, a housewife from Kansas, thanked the inventor for the electricity and time-saving appliances in her home (see Source 5.1).¹ From Norton, Kansas, she wrote:

我们最近观察了一群 11 年级的学生，他们仔细研究了这封信。拿着这封信，他们思考了这个问题：“爱迪生的发明如何改变了美国人的生活？” 学生们被莱斯罗普夫人的热情所吸引，纷纷议论道：“在各个方面”、“很多”、“他们让生活变得更轻松——尤其是对女性来说。” 拉斯罗普夫人生动的话语让学生们相信电力和电器改善了所有女性的生活，就像她们改善了她的生活一样。

We recently observed a class of 11th-graders who examined this letter. With this letter in hand, they pondered the question, “How did Edison’s inventions change American life?” Carried away by Mrs. Lathrop’s exuberance, students gushed, “In every way,” “A lot,” “They made life easier—especially for women.” The vividness of Mrs. Lathrop’s words led students to believe electricity and appliances had improved life for all women, just as they had for her.

直到老师问：“拉斯罗普夫人有多典型？从这封信中我们能说些什么呢？” 学生们是否从油嘴滑舌的第一印象转向真正的历史分析工作？人口普查数据和历史学家关于电气化、技术、家务和女性角色的研究都表明，拉斯罗普夫人并不是一位典型的 20 年代女性。她的家庭也不代表当时的大多数家庭。因此，对拉斯罗普夫人的典型性的调查成为关于社会阶级、地区差异、20年代生活以及从前工业化到工业化家务劳动的转变的一堂课。

Not until the teacher asked, “How typical was Mrs. Lathrop? How much can we say from this one letter?” did the students move from glib first impressions to begin the work of real historical analysis. Census data and historians’ work on electrification, technology, housework, and women’s roles all indicate that Mrs. Lathrop was not a typical 1920s woman. Nor did her household represent the majority of households of the time. Investigating the typicality of Mrs. Lathrop thus becomes a lesson in social class, regional differences, life in the 1920s, and the transition from pre-industrialized to industrialized housework.

我们需要做的第一件事是通过关注历史理解的两个核心方面来获取这份文档：时间和地点。那是 1921 年。莱斯罗普夫人提到的许多发明——缝纫机、洗碗机等等——都是前一年左右刚刚问世的。事实上，谁拥有这些设备？它们的分布范围有多广？其次，堪萨斯州诺顿到底在哪里？堪萨斯州显然位于美国腹地，但诺顿在哪里？它是威奇托或托皮卡等市区的郊区吗？或者它远离大城市，是 20 年代仍占美国人口大多数的乡村景观的一部分？

The first thing we need to do is source this document by focusing on two core aspects of historical understanding: time and place. The year is 1921. The many inventions Mrs. Lathrop mentions—sewing machine, dishwasher, and so on—had just come out the previous year or so. Who, in fact, owned these devices? How widespread were they? Second, where exactly is Norton, Kansas? Kansas is in the American heartland, obviously, but where is Norton? Is it a suburb of an urban area like Wichita or Topeka? Or is it distant from a big city, part of the rural landscape that still constituted a majority of the American population in the 1920s?

几年前，想要回答这些问题就意味着要花很长时间在图书馆的书架里，翻阅成堆的参考书，希望找到答案。但由于互联网的奇迹和易于使用的数据库的激增，任何具有高速连接的学生都可以回答这些问题。利用这些资源，我们可以很快了解到拉斯罗普夫人是多么的不寻常，以及将她的观点推广到 1920 年代的所有美国女性是多么危险。

Years ago, trying to answer these questions would have meant long hours spent in the stacks of a library, hunting through piles of reference books hoping to find answers. But thanks to the wonders of the Internet and the proliferation of easy-to-use databases, these questions can be answered by any student with a high-speed connection. Drawing on these resources, we can quickly get an idea of just how unusual Mrs. Lathrop was, and just how perilous it is to generalize from her to all American women in the 1920s.

使用谷歌地图（http://maps.google.com），我们可以很快看到堪萨斯州诺顿位于西北部堪萨斯州一角，内布拉斯加州边境以南，远离主要人口中心——距离托皮卡 290 英里，距离堪萨斯城 350 英里，距离威奇托 270 英里，距离丹佛 310 英里。查看弗吉尼亚大学图书馆网站 ( http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu ) 上的 1920 年联邦人口普查，我们可以了解有关拉斯罗普家乡的更多信息。通过指定堪萨斯州，我们了解到，1920 年，诺顿县占该州 1,769,257 名人口中的 11,423 名堪萨斯人（或不到 1%）。事实上，人口普查显示诺顿县每平方英里有 130 人，就人口密度而言，该县在该州各县中排名垫底。1921 年，拉斯罗普夫人给托马斯·爱迪生写信时，她似乎生活在一个相当乡村的地区。

Using Google Maps (http://maps.google.com), we can quickly see that Norton, Kansas, is in the northwest corner of Kansas, just south of the Nebraska border and far from major population centers—290 miles from Topeka, 350 from Kansas City, 270 from Wichita, and 310 from Denver. A look at the 1920 Federal census at the University of Virginia library’s website (http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu) gives us more information about Lathrop’s hometown. By specifying Kansas, we learn that in 1920, Norton County accounted for 11,423 Kansans out of a state population of 1,769,257 (or less than 1%). Indeed, the census shows that Norton County had 130 people per square mile, putting it in the bottom half of the state’s counties in terms of population density. Mrs. Lathrop, it appears, lived in a fairly rural region when she wrote to Thomas Edison in 1921.

与农村同龄人相比，拉斯罗普夫人在 1921 年就已经通电了，这一事实是极不寻常的。美国技术历史学家戴维·奈 (David Nye) 指出，1935 年（莱斯罗普夫人写信14 年后），堪萨斯州只有 5% 到 15% 的农村地区通了电；大多数通电的农村地区位于东北部或远西部。²研究 20 世纪南方经济发展的历史学家克莱顿·布朗 (Clayton Brown) 引用了 1920 年的联邦人口普查，显示在 600 万个农场中，只有 452,620 个农场（不到 8%）拥有电灯，只有 643,899 个农场（约占 10%）拥有自来水。³ Brown 的结论是，大部分进步发生在新英格兰和远西部：“中西部和南部排名最低，从 10% 到不到 1%。” ⁴直到 20 世纪 30 年代的新政之后，大多数农村地区才实现了电气化。

Compared to her rural peers, the fact that Mrs. Lathrop even had electricity in 1921 was highly unusual. David Nye, a historian of American technology, notes that in 1935 (14 years after Mrs. Lathrop wrote her letter) only 5 to 15% of rural Kansas had electricity; most rural areas with electricity lay in the Northeast or Far West.² Clayton Brown, a historian of 20th-century Southern economic development, cites a 1920 Federal census showing that of 6 million farms, only 452,620 (less than 8%) had electric lights and only 643,899, roughly 10%, possessed running water.³ Brown concludes that most of these advancements took place in New England and the Far West: “The Midwest and South ranked lowest, ranging from 10 percent to less than 1 percent.”⁴ Electrification didn’t come to most rural areas until the New Deal of the 1930s.

与拉斯罗普不同的是，大多数农村妇女为了维持家庭运转而忍受着繁重的工作。洗衣服尤其令人厌恶。⁵历史学家 Susan Strasser 根据家庭经济学家 Catharine Beecher (1841) 和 Helen Campbell (1881) 的论文进行了描述。

In contrast to Lathrop, most rural women endured backbreaking work to keep their households running. Doing laundry was particularly odious.⁵ Historian Susan Strasser gives a description based on the treatises of home economists Catharine Beecher (1841) and Helen Campbell (1881).

布朗的工作支持了这些分析。1919 年，美国农业部 (USDA) 报告称，“农村家庭每周花费 10 多个小时抽水并将其从水源运送到厨房。” ⁷布朗认为，“农妇每年洗衣服的时间比城里使用电动洗衣机的妇女多二十天。” ⁸美国传记作家罗伯特·卡罗 (Robert Caro) 在林登·约翰逊 (Lyndon B. Johnson) 的传记中描述了在 1938 年林登·约翰逊 (Lyndon B. Johnson) 精心策划在该地区出现电力之前，在距诺顿以南仅 816 英里的得克萨斯州乡村山区洗衣服的密集劳动。参见来源 5.5）。⁹

Brown’s work supports these analyses. In 1919, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that “rural families spent over 10 hours per week pumping water and carrying it from source to kitchen.”⁷ Brown contends, “Farmwives spent twenty days more per year washing clothes than women in the city using electric washers.”⁸ In his biography of Lyndon B. Johnson, American biographer Robert Caro describes the intensive labor involved in doing laundry in the rural hill country of Texas—just 816 miles south of Norton—before LBJ orchestrated the advent of electricity in the region in 1938 (see Source 5.5).⁹

直到电线和室内管道延伸到人们的家中并且人们购买了洗衣机之前，几代人以来洗衣服的过程基本上没有变化。1921 年，拉斯罗普夫人在美国农村使用电动洗衣机、吸尘器、熨斗和电灯，这并不代表她农村同龄人的经历。尽管到 1930 年，大多数城市居民都拥有了此类便利，但农民家庭要过很多年才能利用家庭技术的类似优势。¹⁰

The process of doing laundry was largely unchanged across generations until electrical lines and indoor plumbing were extended to people’s homes and people purchased washing machines. Mrs. Lathrop’s use of an electric washing machine, vacuum cleaner, iron, and electric lights in rural America in 1921 did not represent the experiences of her rural peers. Although by 1930 most urban dwellers had such conveniences, it would be years before farm families could take similar advantage of household technology.¹⁰

如果拉斯罗普夫人可以在美国乡村享受到这样的便利，为什么其他人不能呢？使用洗衣机需要室内管道和冷热水。首先，你需要钱来购买电器、支付水电费、给房子布线以及连接电线。电力公司没有动力将线路延伸到只有少数人可以利用的农村地区。大多数农村居民太穷，无力支付电器或日常用电费用（见来源 5.3）。奈指出，到 20 年代末，有 10% 的美国农民拥有配电线路，他们为接入电网支付了城市电费的两倍。¹¹如果说 1921 年，拉斯罗普在堪萨斯州的农村地区通了电，而其他人却没有，那是因为她处于一个罕见的地位。她很有钱！

If Mrs. Lathrop could enjoy such amenities in rural America, why couldn’t others? Using a washing machine required indoor plumbing, and hot and cold running water. And you needed the money to buy the appliance in the first place, pay utility bills, wire the house, and bring electrical lines to it. Power companies had no incentive to extend lines to rural areas where only small numbers could tap into them. Most rural residents were too poor to pay for appliances or daily electricity (see Source 5.3). Nye stipulates that the 10% of American farmers who had distribution lines to their homes by the end of the 1920s had paid double the urban rate to get connected to the grid.¹¹ If Lathrop had electricity in rural Kansas in 1921 while others didn’t, it is because she was in a rare position. She was rich!

拉斯罗普夫人的农村同龄人必须等到新政才有望获得电力。1938 年开始，农村电气化管理局 (REA) 向农民合作社提供资金、设备和专业知识。一年后，四分之一的农场有了电力服务。¹²第二次世界大战放慢了步伐；到 1944 年，只有 45% 的美国农场获得了电力^。13相比之下，在商业和公民利益的推动下，电力迅速进入城市。城市居民受益于连接企业和工厂的线路，而郊区居民则利用连接他们与市中心的电车线路。

Mrs. Lathrop’s rural peers had to wait until the New Deal before they could hope for electricity. Begun in 1938, the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) lent money, equipment, and expertise to farmers’ cooperatives. A year later, a quarter of all farms had electrical service.¹² World War II slowed the pace; only 45% of U.S. farms had received electricity by 1944.¹³ In contrast, spurred by business and civic interests, electricity came quickly to cities. Urban dwellers benefited from lines that connected businesses and factories, while suburban residents took advantage of electrical trolley lines connecting them to city centers.

拉斯罗普夫人的家与大多数农村家庭的鲜明对比，凸显了她的上流社会背景。鉴于 1920 年 35% 的美国家庭拥有电力，拉斯罗普夫人享有比大多数美国人更高的生活水平。¹⁴这些新型电气设备的主要受益者是富人。历史学家露丝·施瓦茨·考恩 (Ruth Schwartz Cowen) 发现，在美国 36 个城市的富裕家庭中，80%1926 年，美国拥有吸尘器和洗衣机。¹⁵ 1921 年，电灶和洗衣机在上层阶级家庭中更为常见。¹⁶ 1935 年，印第安纳州曼西 60% 的家庭拥有燃气灶或电灶，50% 的家庭拥有燃气灶或电灶。一个吸尘机。¹⁷ Lathrop 女士14 年前在农村地区拥有两台电器（与来源 5.2相比）。¹⁸

The sharp contrast between Mrs. Lathrop’s home and the majority of rural households shines a light on her upper-class background. Given that 35% of all American households had electricity in 1920, Mrs. Lathrop enjoyed a higher standard of living than most Americans.¹⁴ The chief beneficiaries of these new electrified gadgets were the wealthy. Historian Ruth Schwartz Cowen found that of the affluent households in 36 American cities, 80% had vacuum cleaners and washing machines in 1926.¹⁵ Electric ranges and washing machines were more often found in upper-class homes in 1921.¹⁶ In 1935, 60% of families in Muncie, Indiana, owned a gas or electric range and 50% had a vacuum cleaner.¹⁷ Mrs. Lathrop had both appliances in a rural area 14 years earlier (compare with Source 5.2).¹⁸

1921 年，一位富裕女性的生活是什么样的？拉斯罗普夫人的信表明她工作并不是为了维持生计。她提到了自己担任妇女俱乐部区官员、镇组织主席和女主人的角色。考恩认为，这些是这个时代的上层阶级家庭主妇可能从事的活动。¹⁹

What was life like for a woman of means in 1921? Mrs. Lathrop’s letter indicates that she didn’t work to make ends meet. She mentions her roles as officer in the District of Women’s Club, President of the Town Organization, and hostess. According to Cowen, these are the kinds of activities that an upper-class housewife of this era might have engaged in.¹⁹

但变化正在发生。在某些情况下，新的节省时间的设备意味着富有的女性要做更多而不是更少的家务活。这怎么可能？从1900年到1920年，生活水平较高的女性很可能需要家政服务来完成家务，例如洗衣服、熨烫衣服或打扫房间——涉及如此繁重体力的工作对这个阶层的女性来说被认为是有辱人格的。²⁰拉斯罗普夫人关于“几乎所有工作都是我自己做”的说法²¹表明她可能需要家庭帮助。然而，从1920年到1940年，随着电器拥有量的增加，上层阶级家庭主妇在家里得到的帮助越来越少。即使是文雅的女士也可以毫不费力地使用洗衣机和吸尘器。²²与世纪之交相比，“这一代普通舒适的家庭主妇学会了在没有仆人协助的情况下组织家务，或者比她母亲所需要的协助时间少得多。” ²³

But changes were afoot. In some cases, new time-saving devices meant that rich women were doing more housework rather than less. How is that possible? From 1900 to 1920, a woman with a high standard of living most likely had domestic help to complete housework such as washing and ironing laundry or cleaning rooms—tasks involving such heavy labor were considered demeaning for women of this class.²⁰ Mrs. Lathrop’s statement about “doing practically all my own work”²¹ suggests that she may have had domestic help. However, from 1920 to 1940, upper-class housewives had less and less help in the home as ownership of electric appliances grew. Even genteel ladies could use a washing machine and vacuum cleaner without much toil.²² Compared to the turn of the century, “the average comfortable housewife of this generation learned to organize the work in her household without the assistance of servants or with far fewer hours of assistance than her mother had had.”²³

拉斯罗普夫人在另一个重要方面与她的同龄人有所不同：她是一名大学毕业生。正如教育史学家 Patricia Albjerg Graham 指出的那样，在世纪之交很少有人上过大学——1920 年，“传统大学年龄段”的男性和女性中只有 8% 上过大学。²⁴ 1900-10 年，当莱斯罗普夫人可能出席时，这一数字仅为 4-5%。²⁵这些学生来自“比一般人口更富有、社会地位更高”的家庭。²⁶ 1837 年，欧柏林学院成为美国第一所向女性开放的大学。到 1910 年，女性几乎占本科生人数的 40%。²⁷到 1920 年，拉斯罗普夫人写下《爱迪生》时，共有 34% 的美国女性获得了学士学位或专业学位。²⁸历史学家芭芭拉·所罗门 (Barbara Solomon) 指出，虽然大多数大学女性都结婚了，但她们结婚的人数少于未上大学的女性，而且结婚的年龄也较晚。²⁹许多已婚毕业生专注于家务和志愿工作，而不是职业。1920 年，只有 9% 的美国女性在外面工作，比 1900 年增加了 3.4%。³⁰莱斯罗普夫人上过大学，这一点很不寻常，但她将自己的学位用于志愿服务和家务工作而不是职业，这是相当典型的。

Mrs. Lathrop was different from her peers in another crucial way: she was a college graduate. As historian of education Patricia Albjerg Graham notes, few people attended college at the turn of the century—in 1920, only 8% of men and women from the “traditional college age group” attended college.²⁴ In 1900–10, when Mrs. Lathrop likely attended, that figure was only 4–5%.²⁵ These students came from families with “greater wealth and higher social status than the population at large.”²⁶ In 1837, Oberlin was the first college in the United States to open its doors to women. By 1910, women made up almost 40% of the undergraduate population.²⁷ By 1920, when Mrs. Lathrop wrote Edison, a total of 34% of American women had received a bachelor’s degree or professional degree.²⁸ Historian Barbara Solomon notes that while most college women married, they did so in fewer numbers than those who didn’t attend college, and at a later age.²⁹ Many married graduates focused on domestic duties and volunteer work rather than a career. In 1920, only 9% of American women worked outside the home, up 3.4% from 1900.³⁰ Mrs. Lathrop was unusual for having gone to college, but fairly typical in using her degree for volunteer and domestic work rather than a profession.

拉斯罗普夫人还代表什么？她无疑代表了电力和家用电器改变女性工作性质后女性的积极反应。居民对阿拉巴马州早期农村电气化试验的反应极为积极。D. Clayton Brown 报告说：“电力对于减轻家务负担的影响最大。妻子们表示，摆脱苦差事后最珍贵的解脱是免于挑水和照顾煤油灯。参与者将更多时间投入到夜间活动，例如阅读和听广播。” ³¹ 1939 年及以后，当更多农村居民用上电时，反应也类似。³²照明、休闲时间，以及从取水、做饭、洗澡和洗衣的艰苦劳作中解脱出来，这些都是农村家庭受欢迎的变化。

What else does Mrs. Lathrop represent? She certainly represents the positive reaction of women once electricity and household appliances changed the nature of women’s work. Residents’ reactions to an early Alabama experiment in rural electrification were overwhelmingly positive. D. Clayton Brown reports, “Electricity had [the] greatest impact in easing the burden of keeping house. Wives mentioned freedom from carrying water and caring for kerosene lamps as their most prized releases from drudgery. Participants devoted more time to evening activities such as reading and listening to the radio.”³¹ When electricity reached more rural residents in 1939 and beyond, reactions were similar.³² Lighting, time for leisure, and a break from the grueling toil of fetching water for drinking, cooking, bathing, and laundry were all welcome changes in rural homes.

一旦新技术进入拉斯罗普夫人的家，她的生活是否变得更加“宜居”？她真的“休息好并准备好在一天结束时服务”她的丈夫了吗？尽管学者们一致认为电力减少了繁重的劳动，但一些人指出它对妇女在家庭中的角色产生了意想不到的后果。电力和电器的影响比拉斯罗普的信或人们的直接反应可能暗示的更大、更多样化（参见来源 5.4）。历史学家考恩和斯特拉瑟认为，妇女的工作正处于根本性的变化之中，其影响尚未完全实现。

Was life more “livable” for Mrs. Lathrop once the new technology entered her home? Was she truly “rested and ready to serve” her husband at the end of the day? Though scholars agree that electricity reduced backbreaking labor, several point to unexpected consequences it had on women’s role in the home. The impact of electricity and appliances was greater and more varied than either Lathrop’s letter or people’s immediate reactions might suggest (see Source 5.4). Historians Cowen and Strasser argue that women’s work was in the midst of fundamental changes, and the ramifications had not yet been fully realized.

拉斯罗普夫人的信表明，1900 年代的家庭不再是生产单位，而是成为消费单位。对于露丝·施瓦茨·考恩（Ruth Schwartz Cowen）来说，这个概念具有误导性，因为它表明女性由于技术变革而获得了新的休闲时间。考恩认为，电力只是改变了家务劳动的性质。它并没有消除它。现在，清洁标准的提高增加了女性需要完成的家务劳动量。由于技术使任务变得更容易，因此人们期望更频繁地完成任务。尽管真空吸尘器使清洁地毯变得更加容易，但现在人们希望女性每周用吸尘器吸尘一次，这样家里就没有灰尘了，而不是每年清洁地毯几次而不用担心灰尘。新的清洁标准也适用于洗衣房。而且由于新技术使此类任务看起来很容易，因此人们预计会更频繁地完成这些任务。斯特拉瑟解释说，

Mrs. Lathrop’s letter suggests that households in the 1900s were no longer units of production, but had become units of consumption. For Ruth Schwartz Cowen this notion is misleading, as it suggests that women had gained new leisure time as a result of technological changes. Cowen argues that electricity only changed the nature of housework; it didn’t eliminate it. Rising standards of cleanliness now added to the amount of housework women were expected to complete. Because technology made tasks easier, they were expected to be done more often. Although vacuum cleaners made cleaning rugs much easier, women were now expected to vacuum weekly and have no dust in the home rather than clean the rugs a few times per year and not worry about the dust. New standards of cleanliness applied to laundry as well. And because new technology made such tasks seem easy, they were expected to be done more often. Strasser explains,

移民减少、战争爆发、经济萧条以及有关妇女角色的意识形态的兴起导致家庭雇用的仆人数量急剧下降。³⁴同时，将某些任务带回家（洗涤和熨烫衣物、清洁地毯）会占用新设备所节省的时间。正如考恩解释的那样，

Decreasing immigration, the onset of war, economic depression, and emerging ideology about women’s roles led to a sharp decline in the number of servants employed by households.³⁴ At the same time, returning certain tasks to the home (washing and ironing laundry, carpet cleaning) filled any time gained by the new equipment. As Cowen explains,

在早期，像洗衣这样的工作被认为对上层阶级女性来说过于劳动密集或有辱人格。一旦新技术减轻了苦差事，所有女性都可以接受从事这种工作。³⁶最终的结果是，美国女性比以往任何时候都更多地参与家务劳动。节省下来的劳动力是雇佣工人的，而不是他们自己的。³⁷

In earlier times, tasks like laundry were deemed too labor-intensive or demeaning for upper-class women. Once the new technology eased the drudgery, it became acceptable for all women to do this kind of work.³⁶ The net effect was that American women were more engaged in housework than ever. The labor saved was hired workers’, not their own.³⁷

当考恩检查 20 年代和 1930 年代富裕家庭主妇的时间研究时，她发现花在家务上的平均时间没有明显变化。³⁸妇女的阶级背景再次反映了电力和技术对家务劳动的影响。直到 1939 年左右，没有收入的农村妇女才出现了变化。大多数人直到战后才会经历重大变化。直到那时，工薪阶层女性才感受到技术的推动，让家务劳动变得不再那么辛苦。

When Cowen examined time studies of affluent housewives in the 1920s and 1930s, she found that the average time spent on housework did not change markedly.³⁸ Again, women’s class background reflected the impact of electricity and technology on housework. Rural women without means saw no change until about 1939; most would not experience major changes until after the war. Only then did working-class women feel a boost from technology that made housework less laborious.

在拉斯罗普夫人写作期间，城市中的贫困和中产阶级女性的生活水平可能有所提高。这些妇女的工资往往超出了她们的家务劳动，并且不太可能付钱给其他人来完成基本的家务劳动。但即使新技术、自来水和电力有了显着的进步，清洁标准的提高以及将家庭生活和女性气质联系起来的意识形态也给所有女性带来了额外的压力。

Urban women of the poorer and middle classes probably experienced an improved standard of living around the time Mrs. Lathrop wrote. These women often earned wages beyond their housework, and would have been less likely to pay others to complete basic household tasks. But even as new technology, running water, and electricity were notable improvements, increasing standards of cleanliness and an ideology that linked domesticity and womanhood put additional pressure on all women.

考恩认为，随着女性在家庭中的角色变得更加固定，无论阶级如何，女性变得更加孤立。自工业时代开始以来，与前工业时代相比，妇女与丈夫和孩子一起工作的情况减少了。随着电力的出现，这种趋势仍在继续。过去男人和孩子们执行的任务（砍伐和拖运木头用于火炉）现在已经过时了。这解放了男人的时间，使他们能够在家庭之外找到工作。因工业化而解放的儿童开始上学或从事赚取工资的劳动。与此同时，清洁和做饭等任务仍然存在，并且落在了女性身上。³⁹因此，一些历史学家认为，尽管电力和家庭技术的直接影响是惊人的，但从长远来看，它们只是重新安排而不是减少家务劳动。对于许多女性来说，其后果并不像拉斯罗普夫人的信中让我们相信的那么积极。

Cowen argues that as their roles became more fixed in the home, regardless of class, women became more isolated. Since the onset of the industrial age, women had worked less alongside their husbands and children than in pre-industrial times. With the advent of electricity, this trend continued. The tasks men and children used to perform (cutting and hauling wood for stoves) were now obsolete. This freed men’s time and enabled them to find work outside the home. Children, freed by industrialization, spent time at school or wage-earning labor. Meanwhile, tasks like cleaning and cooking remained—and they fell to women.³⁹ Thus, some historians argue that even though the immediate impact of electricity and household technology was stunning, in the long run, they simply rearranged, rather than reduced, housework. And for many women, the consequences were not nearly as positive as Mrs. Lathrop’s letter would have us believe.

通过将这一封信与一系列来源进行比较，我们可以在她的历史背景下欣赏拉斯罗普夫人，并更好地理解那个时期和个人来源。了解拉斯罗普夫人让我们考虑地区和阶级差异。要看到拉斯罗普夫人与 20 世纪 20 年代其他女性的相似之处和不同之处，必须有更广泛的背景。我们倾向于将技术变革视为进步，而没有充分考虑它们如何影响不同群体。尽管拉斯罗普夫人对她的新技术感到兴奋，但随着时间的推移，这意味着她可能需要比以前做更多的家务活。相比之下，1921 年尚未获得权力的贫困妇女和农村妇女可能受益最多，因为她们总是自己做家务。不管，新技术对女性工作的改变比拉斯罗普夫人的信中所表明的更为深刻。她的信是了解一个时代的一扇窗户，但仅此而已。我们可以看到一扇窗户所允许的尽可能多的东西。但越过这个窗口，是一个更广阔、更复杂的世界，无法轻易概括。拉斯罗普夫人的故事和随附的资料可帮助我们的学生应对这些复杂的问题。

In comparing this one letter to a range of sources, we can appreciate Mrs. Lathrop in her historical context, and better understand both the period and the individual source. Understanding Mrs. Lathrop makes us consider regional and class differences. This broader context is necessary to see Mrs. Lathrop as both similar to and different from other women in the 1920s. We tend to think of the technological changes as improvements without fully considering how they affected different groups. Though Mrs. Lathrop was thrilled with her new technology, over time it meant she probably had to do more housework than before. In contrast, the poor and rural women who were yet to receive power in 1921 likely benefited the most, given that they had always done their own housework. Regardless, the new technology altered women’s work in more profound ways than Mrs. Lathrop’s letter indicates. Her letter is a window on an era, but only that. We can see just as much as that one window allows. But beyond that window is a broader, more complex world that resists facile generalizations. Mrs. Lathrop’s story and the accompanying sources help our students navigate these complexities.

为什么要讲述莱斯罗普夫人的故事？

Why Teach About Mrs. Lathrop?

代表性：我们可以从一封信中学到多少？当学生们第一次读到拉斯罗普夫人写给托马斯·爱迪生的信时，许多人得出结论，电力在 1921 年对每个人产生了积极的影响。他们根据拉斯罗普夫人的印象，假设当时所有人对电气化和新电器都有同样的反应。概括的倾向是自然的，但这样做时，学生们错过了那个时期的复杂性，错过了电力和新技术的长期影响。

Representativeness: How Much Can We Learn from One Letter? When students first read Mrs. Lathrop’s letter to Thomas Edison, many conclude that electricity positively influenced everyone in 1921. They take Mrs. Lathrop’s impressions and assume that all people at this time had the same reaction to electrification and new appliances. The tendency to generalize is natural, but in doing so, students miss the complexities of the time period and miss the long-range impact of electricity and new technology.

社会心理学家谈论“生动效应”，其中数据的色彩和即时性会扭曲我们对典型性和代表性的判断。可以肯定的是，拉斯罗普夫人的信生动地展示了她的生活——作为一个来源，它富有表现力和令人难忘，而且考虑到爱迪生在顶部的手写注释，它具有很少有二手来源所共有的真实性。

Social psychologists talk about a “vividness effect” in which the color and immediacy of data skew our judgments of typicality and representativeness. To be sure, Mrs. Lathrop’s letter provides a vivid peek inside her life—as a source, it is expressive and memorable, and given Edison’s handwritten note at the top, it possesses an authenticity shared by few secondary sources.

但这封信吸引我们的特质却可能使我们误入歧途。拉斯罗普夫人的信讲述了爱迪生的发明如何改变了一位受过教育的特权女性的生活，她在 1921 年拥有了大多数美国人直到很久以后才拥有的电器。

But the very qualities that attract us to this letter can lead us astray. Mrs. Lathrop’s letter tells how Edison’s inventions transformed the life of an educated woman of privilege who in 1921 owned appliances that most Americans did not own until much later.

毫无疑问，爱迪生的发明改变了拉斯罗普的生活。但这些发明还需要很多年才能普及到普通美国人，特别是在农村地区。将莱斯罗普夫人的信与其他文件和数据来源相佐证，可以促使学生更加批判性地阅读，并将莱斯罗普夫人的经历置于历史背景中。一旦他们开始将拉斯罗普夫人的经历视为众多经历之一，他们就会对那个时期、女性历史和技术有了更复杂的看法。一封信告诉我们有关拉斯罗普夫人的事；它没有告诉我们整个国家的情况。

No doubt Edison’s inventions transformed Lathrop’s life. But it would be many years before these inventions would reach the average American, particularly in rural areas. Corroborating Mrs. Lathrop’s letter with other documents and data sources pushes students to read more critically and place Mrs. Lathrop’s experience into historical context. Once they begin to see Mrs. Lathrop’s experience as one of many, they gain a more complex view of the time period, women’s history, and technology. One letter tells us about Mrs. Lathrop; it does not tell us about the country as a whole.

观点：比较历史观点。我们倾向于将历史变迁视为从不太开明的国家到先进国家的进步。美国历史教科书支持这样一种观念，即美国的故事是一个永无休止的进步的故事：随着每一次事件的发生，我们都离建国时设定的理想更近了一步。事实上，历史变迁对人们的影响是不同的。将历史变迁描述为完全是好是坏把问题过于简单化了。生活更加复杂。

Point of View: Comparing Historical Perspectives. We tend to view historical change as progress from a less enlightened state to an advanced state. U.S. history textbooks support the notion that the American story is one of unending progress: With each event we move closer to the ideals set out in the founding of this nation. In reality, historical changes affect people differently. Portraying historical change as completely good or bad oversimplifies the matter. Life is more complicated.

要了解任何技术的影响，我们必须问：谁受益？当学生们证实历史资料时，他们的目光超越了拉斯罗普夫人，并瞥见了 1920 年代其他女性的经历。多种历史视角可以让学生更全面地了解历史，帮助学生看到复杂的因果关系。

To understand the impact of any technology, we must ask: Who benefits? As students corroborate historical sources, they see beyond Mrs. Lathrop and gain a glimpse of other women’s experiences in the 1920s. Multiple historical perspectives can give a more complete view of history and help students see complex cause-effect relationships.

历史证据：使用数字数据和互联网来了解过去。本课程不仅为学生提供了阅读书面文档的机会，还为学生提供了使用数字数据和互联网的机会。通过简单的网络搜索和阅读随附的历史资料，学生们会遇到统计数据，使他们能够将拉斯罗普与她的同时代人进行比较。由于历史记录不完整——我们不知道 1921 年堪萨斯州诺顿到底谁有和没有电力和电器——本课使用费城和农村农场等地的数据来研究城市和农村之间的差异地区。从不完整的数据中得出结论总是需要进行推理。但疯狂的猜测和有根据的猜测之间存在很大差异。

Historical Evidence: Using Numerical Data and the Internet to Understand the Past. This lesson not only gives students the chance to read written documents, but also presents an opportunity to use numerical data and the Internet. Through simple web searches and reading accompanying historical sources, students encounter statistical data that allow them to compare Lathrop to her contemporaries. Because the historical record is incomplete—we don’t know exactly who had and didn’t have electricity and appliances in Norton, Kansas, in 1921—this lesson uses data from places like Philadelphia and rural farms to study the difference between urban and rural areas. Drawing conclusions from incomplete data always involves making inferences. But there is a big difference between a wild guess and an educated one. This lesson gives students the opportunity to engage with new forms of evidence and teaches them to be tentative in the conclusions they draw.

您将如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

场景 1（1-2 小时课程）。拉斯罗普夫人在 20 年代女性中的代表性如何？使用这些来源和工具让学生阅读和分析多个来源，并就她的代表性提出基于证据的论点。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). How representative was Mrs. Lathrop of women in the 1920s? Use these sources and tools to engage students in reading and analyzing multiple sources and creating an evidence-based argument about her representativeness.

与学生一起阅读 Lathrop 夫人的信（来源 5.1），并询问这封信告诉了他们关于 20 年代女性的哪些信息。使用工具 5.1帮助学生将拉斯罗普夫人置于此时美国女性的更广阔的视野中。使用工具5.1在该课程中，学生将使用万维网来检查 Lathrop 夫人来自的地区，并访问弗吉尼亚大学在线图书馆数据库中的 1920 年人口普查数据。我们建议让学生结对或小组合作，以鼓励对发现的讨论，并为学生提供互相帮助的机会。在查阅了各种资源并阅读了莱斯罗普夫人的信后，学生们被要求对莱斯罗普的代表性进行论证。这是全班讨论的良好起点。讨论结束后，要求学生写一篇简短的文章，给出他们的结论并提供支持证据。

Read Mrs. Lathrop’s letter (Source 5.1) with students and ask what it tells them about women in the 1920s. Use Tool 5.1 to help students set Mrs. Lathrop into a broader picture of American women at this time. Using Tool 5.1, students will use the World Wide Web to examine the region Mrs. Lathrop came from and access 1920 Census data at the University of Virginia’s online library database. We suggest having students work in pairs or groups to encourage discussion of discoveries and to give students opportunities to help each other. After consulting various resources and reading Mrs. Lathrop’s letter, students are then asked to make an argument about Lathrop’s representativeness. This is a good starting point for a whole-class discussion. Following the discussion, ask students to write a brief essay giving their conclusions with supporting evidence.

学生可以通过阅读资料来源 5.2和5.3继续这一探究，其中提供了一个城市地区的统计数据以及当时美国农村的概况。工具 5.2帮助学生利用这些新资料来探索 Lathrop 夫人在 1920 年代美国更广泛的形象中的典型性。资料来源引导学生不仅要考虑地区差异，还要考虑阶级差异。在课程结束时，讨论学生对莱斯罗普夫人的看法。要求学生引用证据来支持他们的结论。将这些回应与之前的回应（工具 5.1末尾）进行比较，看看证据如何以及是否改变了他们的结论。讨论结束后，要求学生写下工具 5.2底部问题 8 的修订结论。学生应该使用来源证据来解释他们的结论是否发生了变化以及原因。

Students can continue this inquiry by reading Sources 5.2 and 5.3, which give statistics for one urban area and an overview of rural America at the time. Tool 5.2 helps students use these new sources to explore Mrs. Lathrop’s typicality against a much broader portrait of the United States in the 1920s. The sources direct students to consider not only regional differences but class differences, too. At the end of the lesson, discuss students’ ideas about Mrs. Lathrop. Ask students to cite evidence to support their conclusions. Compare these responses to earlier ones (at the end of Tool 5.1) and see how and if the evidence has altered their conclusions. After the discussion, ask students to write a revised conclusion to Question 8 at the bottom of Tool 5.2. Students should use evidence from the sources to explain whether their conclusions have changed and why.

场景 2（1-2 小时课程）。电力和新技术如何影响 20 年代的人们？使用这些材料让学生参与阅读和分析，以就 20 年代技术的影响提出基于证据的论点。

Scenario 2 (1–2 Hour Lesson). How did electricity and new technology influence people in the 1920s? Use these materials to engage students in reading and analysis to create an evidence-based argument about the impact of technology in the 1920s.

要求学生在开始本课之前重读 Lathrop 夫人的信（来源 5.1 ），或完成场景 1，然后继续本课，其中结合了来源 5.4和5.5以及工具 5.3考虑 20 年代电力的影响，学生思考电力对不同背景的妇女的影响。

Ask students to reread Mrs. Lathrop’s letter (Source 5.1) before starting this lesson, or complete Scenario 1 and then move on to this lesson, which combines Sources 5.4 and 5.5 with Tool 5.3 to consider the effects of electricity in the 1920s as students ponder the impact of electricity on women from different backgrounds.

从拉斯罗普夫人的信开始。以班级或小组的形式，按照拉斯罗普夫人信中的报告，制定一份日常生活时间表。让学生列出信中表明拉斯罗普对她的生活的感受的单词和短语。让学生阅读资料来源 5.4和5.5，比较富裕妇女与农村贫困妇女的洗衣任务。让学生想象不同的家庭主妇会如何描述她们的生活。学生将使用什么证据来构建这些图像？使用维恩图，要求学生与搭档一起对比上流社会女性在通电前后的生活。这将使学生感受到一个社会阶层的变化和连续性，以及电力改变他们家务劳动的方式。

Begin with Mrs. Lathrop’s letter. As a class or in groups, create a schedule of Mrs. Lathrop’s daily life as reported in her letter. Have students list words and phrases from the letter that indicate how Lathrop feels about her life. Have students read Sources 5.4 and 5.5 to compare laundry tasks for affluent women vs. the rural poor. Ask students to imagine how different housewives would describe their lives. What evidence will students use to construct these images? Using a Venn diagram, ask students to work with a partner to contrast the lives of upper-class women before and after electricity. This will give students a sense of change and continuity for one social class, and the ways electricity altered their housework.

本章的重点是通过确凿的资料来了解 20 年代技术的影响。工具 5.3将评估这一目标。此外，学生还可以制作一张 T 形图，一方面显示技术对 20 年代女性的积极影响，另一方面显示技术对女性的负面影响。要求学生给出他们的初步印象，然后在处理来源时将想法、引文和信息添加到此图表中。要求学生重新审视他们最初的回答，并在整个课程中随着他们了解更多内容定期修改它们。接下来用一段或完整的文章来回答这个问题：1921 年技术对女性的影响主要是积极的还是消极的？与每一篇论文一样，要求学生利用来源证据来支持他们的论点。

A major focus of this chapter is to understand the impact of technology in the 1920s through corroborating sources. Tool 5.3 will assess this objective. In addition, students could create a T chart, with positive influences of technology on women in the 1920s on one side and negative influences on the other. Ask students to give their initial impression and then add ideas, quotations, and information to this chart as they work with the sources. Ask students to revisit their initial responses and revise them periodically throughout the lesson as they learn more. Follow this up with a paragraph or full essay in response to the question: Was the impact of technology on women in 1921 mostly positive or negative? As with every essay, ask students to draw on evidence from sources to support their arguments.

场景 3（1 小时课程）。20 世纪 20 年代的家庭主妇关心什么？使用在线资源来研究 20 世纪 20 年代家庭主妇面临的挑战。

Scenario 3 (1 Hour Lesson). What were housewives concerned about in the 1920s? Use online resources to examine the challenges housewives faced in the 1920s.

阅读莱斯罗普夫人的信，并询问学生信中对莱斯罗普夫人的生活方式有何评价。要考虑这个时代多个家庭主妇的观点，请访问乔治梅森大学历史和新媒体中心的历史事务网站。在那里，搜索历史问题上的一个来源，标题为“‘我只是一台机器’：家庭主妇分析她们的问题。”

Read Mrs. Lathrop’s letter and ask students what it says about Mrs. Lathrop’s lifestyle. To consider multiple housewives’ perspectives from this era, go to the History Matters website at George Mason University’s Center for History and New Media. There, search for a source housed at History Matters entitled, “‘I am only a piece of machinery’: Housewives analyze their problems.”

在这里，学生可以阅读 1923 年寄给妇女家庭伴侣的信件，其中家庭主妇分享了家庭问题和解决方案（我们最喜欢的标题是“不间断的圆圈”）。给学生一个焦点问题，例如“关于 20 年代的家庭主妇，你能得出什么结论？引用来源的证据来支持你的结论。” 您可以返回到拉斯罗普夫人的信中，看看拉斯罗普与《女人之家伴侣》中的女性相比如何。拉斯罗普夫人可能会写什么给妇女之家伴侣？无论观众是谁，她的语气都会保持乐观和快乐吗？本课模拟了历史调查、质疑和来源比较的过程。

Here students may read letters sent to the Woman’s Home Companion in 1923 in which housewives shared household problems and solutions (our favorite is entitled “The Unbroken Circle”). Give students a focus question like “What conclusions can you make about housewives in the 1920s? Cite evidence from the sources to support your conclusions.” You can return to Mrs. Lathrop’s letter to see how Lathrop compares to the women of the Woman’s Home Companion. What might Mrs. Lathrop have written to the Woman’s Home Companion? Would her tone have remained as upbeat and happy, regardless of audience? This lesson models the process of historical investigation, questioning, and comparison of sources.

另一项作业（参见工具 5.4）要求学生选择 1921 年的四组妇女（贫穷的城市、贫穷的农村、富裕的农村、富裕的城市），并安排每个妇女一天的生活。学生应该为每个女性制定一个每日时间表。应参考和引用本章以及历史和新媒体中心网站的资料，以使学生的工作扎根于 20 世纪 20 年代美国的现实。然后，学生可以写下对以下问题的回答：1921 年，拉斯罗普夫人在女性中的代表性如何？

An alternative assignment (see Tool 5.4) asks students to select four groups of women in 1921 (poor urban, poor rural, wealthy rural, wealthy urban) and schedule a day from each woman’s life. Students should construct a daily schedule for each woman. Sources from this chapter, as well as those from the Center for History and New Media website, should be consulted and cited to ground students’ work in the realities of 1920s America. Students could then write a response to the question: How representative was Mrs. Lathrop of women in 1921?

来源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源5.1：亲爱的先生。爱迪生（修改版）

SOURCE 5.1: DEAR MR. EDISON (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自 WC Lathrop 夫人 1921 年 3 月 5 日写给托马斯·爱迪生的信。

Source: Excerpt from Mrs. W. C. Lathrop’s letter to Thomas Edison, March 5, 1921.

资料来源5.2：费城的设备所有权（修改后）

SOURCE 5.2: APPLIANCE OWNERSHIP IN PHILADELPHIA (MODIFIED)

资料来源：CJ Russell，“费城调查”。会议记录，NELA 公约，1921 年。复制于纽约市爱迪生联合图书馆。引自 David Nye，《电气化美国：新技术的社会意义，1880-1940》（马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社，1990 年），303。

Source: C. J. Russell, “Philadelphia Survey.” Proceedings, NELA Convention, 1921. Copy in the Consolidated Edison Library, New York City. Cited in David Nye, Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880–1940 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 303.

资料来源5.3：美国农村地区的电力（修改后）

SOURCE 5.3: ELECTRICITY IN RURAL AMERICA (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自 D. Clayton Brown，《美国农村电力：为 REA 而战》（康涅狄格州韦斯特波特：格林伍德出版社，1980 年）。xv-xvi 和 3-5。

Source: Excerpts from D. Clayton Brown, Electricity for Rural America: The Fight for the REA (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980). xv–xvi and 3–5.

资料来源5.4 ：1920年代富裕女性的工作（修改）

SOURCE 5.4: AFFLUENT WOMEN’S WORK IN THE 1920S (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自 Ruth Schwartz Cowan，《为母亲做更多的工作：从平炉到微波炉的家庭技术的讽刺》（纽约：Basic Books，1983 年），178。

Source: Excerpt from Ruth Schwartz Cowan, More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 178.

资料来源5.5 ：1920年代贫困农村妇女的工作（修改后）

SOURCE 5.5: POOR, RURAL WOMEN’S WORK IN THE 1920S (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自罗伯特·卡罗，《林登·约翰逊的岁月：权力之路》（纽约：Alfred A. Knopf，1982），504-509。

Source: Excerpt from Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), 504–509.

工具5.1：将来源置于上下文中

TOOL 5.1: PUTTING SOURCES INTO CONTEXT

---

说明：为了更好地理解拉斯罗普夫人的世界观，请尝试想象她写这封信的时间和地点。阅读源代码 5.1并回答以下问题。

Directions: To better understand Mrs. Lathrop’s view of the world, try to imagine the time and place in which she wrote this letter. Read Source 5.1 and answer the following questions.

1. 这是写在哪里的？
   
   
   
   
2. Where was this written?
   
   
   
   
3. 转至http://maps.google.com/并搜索 Lathrop 夫人所在的城镇和州。
   1. 这个小镇位于美国的哪个地区？
      
      
      
      
   2. 这个城镇位于该州的哪个部分？
      
      
      
      
   3. 距离当时最近的主要城市托皮卡和丹佛有多远？
      
      
      
      
4. Go to http://maps.google.com/ and search for Mrs. Lathrop’s town and state.
   1. In what region of the United States is this town located?
      
      
      
      
   2. In what part of the state is this town?
      
      
      
      
   3. How far is it to the closest major cities of that time period—Topeka and Denver?
      
      
      
      
5. 转至弗吉尼亚大学图书馆的历史人口普查浏览器 ( http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu )。
   1. 单击 1920 年人口普查数据。
   2. 搜索两个变量：总人口和每平方英里人口。
   3. 请注意下表中堪萨斯州的数字。
   4. 将堪萨斯州每平方英里的人口与其他州进行比较 - 转到页面底部并按每平方英里的人口降序对数据进行排序。点击“提交”。从上往下数，看看堪萨斯州的人口密度排名第几。
   5. 对于堪萨斯州，请注意下表中诺顿县的数字。
   6. 将诺顿县与堪萨斯州其他县的每平方英里人口进行比较 - 转到页面底部并按每平方英里人口降序对数据进行排序。点击“提交”。从上往下数，看看诺顿县的人口密度排名。
6. Go to the Historical Census Browser at the University of Virginia’s library (http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu).
   1. Click on the 1920 Census data.
   2. Search for two variables: total population and population per square mile.
   3. Note the figures for Kansas in the table below.
   4. Compare the population per square mile for Kansas to other states—go to the bottom of the page and sort the data by population per square mile in descending order. Click “submit.” Count from the top to see where Kansas ranked in terms of population density.
   5. Specifying Kansas, note the figures for Norton County in the table below.
   6. Compare the population per square mile for Norton County with other counties in Kansas—go to the bottom of the page and sort the data by population per square mile in descending order. Click “submit.” Count from the top to see where Norton County ranked in terms of population density.
7. 您会将拉斯罗普夫人所在的城镇描述为乡村、城市还是郊区？为什么？
   
   
   
   
   
   
8. Would you characterize Mrs. Lathrop’s town as rural, urban, or suburban? Why?
   
   
   
   
   
   
9. 这个源码是什么时候写的？
   
   
   
   
   
   
10. When was this source written?
    
    
    
    
    
    
11. 撰写本文时还发生了什么？列出当天的 3 个事件或问题，并解释为什么它们对于理解此来源可能很重要。
    
    
    
    
    
    
12. What else was happening at the time this was written? List 3 events or issues of the day, and explain why they might be important to understanding this source.
    
    
    
    
    
    
13. 根据她的信，拉斯罗普夫人拥有什么物质财富？列出它们。
    
    
    
    
    
    
14. According to her letter, what material goods does Mrs. Lathrop own? List them.
    
    
    
    
    
    
15. 列出拉斯罗普夫人信中可能表明她社会地位的详细信息。
    
    
    
    
    
    
16. List details from Mrs. Lathrop’s letter that might indicate her social status.
    
    
    
    
    
    
17. 您认为莱斯罗普夫人在 20 年代堪萨斯州的女性中具有怎样的代表性？使用您阅读和研究中的详细信息来支持您的答案。
18. How representative of women in Kansas in the 1920s do you think Mrs. Lathrop was? Use details from your reading and research to support your answer.

工具5.2 ：比较MRS 。_ 拉斯罗普与她的同时代人

TOOL 5.2: COMPARING MRS. LATHROP TO HER CONTEMPORARIES

---

1. 1920 年，堪萨斯州通电的农场比例是多少？（提示：参见源码 5.3）
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. What percentage of farms in Kansas had electricity in 1920? (Hint: See Source 5.3)
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 根据资料来源 5.3，1920年什么样的农村或农户用上了电？使用来源证据进行解释。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. Based on Source 5.3, what kind of rural or farm households had electricity in 1920? Explain using evidence from the sources.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 为什么没有更多的农村家庭用上电？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Why didn’t more rural households have electricity?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 费城位于该国的哪个地区？1920 年费城是城市还是乡村？你怎么知道？使用 1920 年人口普查数据来证明你的答案。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
8. In what part of the country is Philadelphia located? Was Philadelphia an urban or rural area in 1920? How do you know? Use the 1920 Census data to justify your answer.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
9. 列出您在工具 5.1中为 Lathrop 夫人制作的物资和器具清单。将她拥有的房产与 1921 年费城的贫困、普通和高档住宅进行比较。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
10. Take the list of material goods and appliances that you made in Tool 5.1 for Mrs. Lathrop. Compare what she owns with poor, average, and better-class homes in Philadelphia in 1921.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
11. 拉斯罗普夫人的家庭与农村、城市、上层阶级和下层阶级家庭相比如何？
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
12. How does Mrs. Lathrop’s household compare with rural, urban, upper-class, and lower-class households?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
13. 根据这些来源和 1920 年人口普查，您可以对 Lathrop 夫人的社会地位得出什么结论？使用来源证据解释你的结论的基础。
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
14. Based on these sources and the 1920 Census, what conclusions can you make about Mrs. Lathrop’s social status? Explain the basis for your conclusions using evidence from the sources.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
15. 1921 年，拉斯罗普夫人在女性中的代表性如何？引用来源中的证据来支持你的想法。
16. How representative was Mrs. Lathrop of women in 1921? Cite evidence from the sources to support your ideas.

工具5.3 ：1920年代的女人：电力对1920年代的影响_ _

TOOL 5.3: THE 1920S WOMAN: THE EFFECTS OF ELECTRICITY IN THE 1920S

---

1. 拉斯罗普夫人向爱迪生先生描述的白天做了什么？使用来源 5.1列出她的活动。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. What does Mrs. Lathrop do during the day that she describes to Mr. Edison? Using Source 5.1, list her activities.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 您认为拉斯罗普夫人的日常生活与大多数农村家庭主妇相比如何？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. How do you think Mrs. Lathrop’s daily life compares to that of the majority of rural housewives?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 使用资料来源 5.4和5.5，比较 20 年代农村贫困人口和“舒适”或上层阶级家庭主妇的洗衣过程。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Using Sources 5.4 and 5.5, compare the process of doing laundry in the 1920s for the rural poor and “comfortable,” or upper-class, housewives.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 重新检查来源 5.1。列出一些表明莱斯罗普夫人对她的生活的感受的单词和短语。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
8. Reexamine Source 5.1. List some words and phrases that indicate how Mrs. Lathrop feels about her life.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
9. 你认为为什么拉斯罗普夫人在信中没有提到任何关于电的负面言论？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
10. Why do you think Mrs. Lathrop did not say anything negative about electricity in her letter?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
11. 您认为拉斯罗普夫人生活在缺电的农村地区的同龄人会如何描述他们的生活？
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
12. How do you think Mrs. Lathrop’s peers in rural areas that lacked electricity would describe their lives?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
13. 根据考恩的说法，电力和新技术如何改变了拉斯罗普夫人的生活？（提示：将拉斯罗普夫人与她的母亲进行比较。使用下面的维恩图来了解这些变化。）
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
14. According to Cowan, how did electricity and new technology change Mrs. Lathrop’s life? (Hint: Compare Mrs. Lathrop with her mother. Use the Venn diagram below to get a sense of these changes.)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
15. 1921年，电力改变了谁的生活？这些变化是积极的吗？使用你面前的证据解释为什么或为什么不。
16. Whose lives were changed by electricity in 1921? Were these changes positive? Explain why or why not, using the evidence before you.

工具5.4：评估学生对观点、代表性和佐证性的理解_ _

TOOL 5.4: ASSESSING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF PERSPECTIVE, REPRESENTATIVENESS, AND CORROBORATION

---

说明：使用提供的资源，为生活在 1921 年的四位不同女性的一天生活制定一个日程表。引用帮助您构建这些女性日程表的资源。

Directions: Using the sources provided, create a schedule for a day in the life of four different women living in 1921. Cite the sources that helped you construct these women’s schedules.

哪一个时间表最像拉斯罗普夫人的？你怎么知道？

Which schedule seems most like Mrs. Lathrop’s? How do you know?

 

 

拉斯罗普夫人的日程安排与其他日程安排相比如何？

How does Mrs. Lathrop’s schedule compare to the other schedules?

建议资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/women/womensbook.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/women/womensbook.html

该页面由福特汉姆大学的保罗·哈尔索尔 (Paul Halsall) 运营，是多本互联网历史资料书籍之一。这个特定页面提供了关注北美和世界各地女性历史的文档和网站的链接。

This page, run by Paul Halsall at Fordham University, is one of several Internet History Sourcebooks. This particular page features links to documents and websites that focus on women’s history both in North America and around the world.

http://www.womenshistorymonth.gov/

http://www.womenshistorymonth.gov/

该页面由美国国会图书馆制作，收藏了丰富多样的与美国妇女历史相关的主要文献。有一长串展品和藏品，包括照片、广告、宣传海报和文本文件。

This page, produced by the Library of Congress, has a rich and varied collection of primary documents related to women’s history in the United States. There is a long list of exhibits and collections that include photographs, advertisements, propaganda posters, and text-based documents.

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/

该网站由哈佛大学运营，重点关注 1800 年至 1930 年美国女性的工作。馆藏包括图像和文本文档。

Run by Harvard University, this site focuses on women’s work in the United States from 1800 to 1930. The collection includes images and text-based documents.

http://www.nwhm.org/exhibits/index.html

http://www.nwhm.org/exhibits/index.html

该页面由国家妇女历史博物馆运营，包括几个有关美国妇女历史不同方面的网络展览。

This page, run by the National Women’s History Museum, includes several cyber exhibits of different aspects of women’s history in America.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=46#

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=46#

请在此站点查看托马斯·爱迪生的电灯泡专利申请，该站点由Our Documents.Gov网站运营（由国家历史日、国家档案和记录管理局、美国自由军团、西门子、美国新闻与世界报道和历史频道）。

See Thomas Edison’s patent application for the electric light bulb at this site, run by the Our Documents.Gov website (a cooperative effort by National History Day, National Archives and Records Administration, USA Freedom Corps, Siemens, U.S. News & World Report, and The History Channel).

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=408#LESSON1

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=408#LESSON1

该页面由国家人文基金会运营，提供一系列课程，帮助学生了解 1800 年代末和 1900 年代初引入新技术之前和之后的生活。

This page, run by the National Endowment for the Humanities, offers a series of lessons to help students understand life before and after new technologies were introduced in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

http://www1.assump.edu/WHW/

http://www1.assumption.edu/WHW/

本页面是国家人文基金会资助的产物，由易三仓学院、美国古物学会、教育联盟和伍斯特妇女历史项目运营。它包括丰富的主要文献以及教师资源，其中包含将妇女历史纳入课程的想法。

This page is the product of a grant by the National Endowment of the Humanities and is run by Assumption College, the American Antiquarian Society, the Alliance for Education, and the Worcester Women’s History Project. It includes a rich collection of primary documents as well as teacher resources with ideas for integrating women’s history into the curriculum.

“男人和女人挤在屋里，出门时用手帕捂住鼻子，戴着护目镜保护眼睛。” 约翰·斯坦贝克 (John Steinbeck) 获得普利策奖的小说《愤怒的葡萄》的开头几页描述了 20 世纪 30 年代中期俄克拉荷马州生活的严峻现实。人们所熟悉的生活消失了，被灰尘吹走了，许多人，比如斯坦贝克的乔德一家，逃离了家园，开始了新的生活。乔德一家在 66 号公路上的旅程以及他们在加利福尼亚州寻找可持续工作的斗争是斯坦贝克故事的主题，这个故事自 1939 年问世以来一直吸引着读者。斯坦贝克的小说不仅是一个引人入胜的故事，而且是对政治和社会的批判揭露了加州农场工人遭受的剥削和虐待。

“Men and women huddled in their houses, and they tied handkerchiefs over their noses when they went out, and wore goggles to protect their eyes.” The opening pages of John Steinbeck’s Pulitzer Prize–winning novel The Grapes of Wrath describe the grim realities of living in Oklahoma in the mid-1930s. Life as people knew it disappeared, blown away by the dust, and many, like Steinbeck’s Joad family, fled their homes to make a new life. The Joads’ trip on Route 66 and their struggles to find sustainable work in California are the subject of Steinbeck’s tale, one that has captivated readers since its appearance in 1939. Not only is it an engaging story, Steinbeck’s novel was a political and social critique that exposed the exploitation and mistreatment of California’s farm workers.

许多人都熟悉那些在 20 世纪 30 年代沙尘暴期间离开受灾地区的人们的故事。Okies、Dorothea Lange 的照片、Woody Guthrie 的歌曲和 Joads——这些细节都留在了我们的集体记忆中。但是那些在长达八年的干旱期间没有离开平原的人们呢？那些勇敢的农民的故事呢？他们留下来，即使土地漂移并消失在他们脚下——灰尘通过无保护的裂缝爬进他们的家，或者更不祥的是，在乌云中降临，窒息了所接触到的一切？这些故事不会像移民故事那样引发人们的认可或试金石品质。然而，它们与那些更容易叙述的事物一样，都是我们过去的一部分。

The story of those who left the afflicted region during the 1930s Dust Bowl is familiar to many. Okies, Dorothea Lange’s photos, Woody Guthrie’s songs, and the Joads—these particulars are lodged in our collective memory. But what about the people who didn’t leave the Plains during what seemed an interminable 8 years of drought? What about the stories of the intrepid farmers who stayed behind even as the land drifted and disappeared beneath them—as dust crept into their homes through unprotected cracks or, more ominously, descended in a black cloud that smothered all it touched? Such stories don’t trigger the same recognition or touchstone quality that those of the migrants do. Yet they are just as much a part of our past as those more easily recounted.

历史充满故事。故事是我们分享过去发生的事情以及理解过去的方式。通常，它们最初激发了我们探索过去及其细节和意义的兴趣。而这些故事需要做出无数的选择：我们要讲谁的故事？我们将重点关注哪些事件？编织一个关于过去的准确故事的关键细节是什么？与斯坦贝克令人惊叹的小说不同，历史故事必须坚持文献记录并有证据支持。¹在本章中，我们将探讨有关沙尘暴的各种故事，首先是那些留下来的人的故事，然后是解释故事——沙尘暴是如何发生的？历史学家不再局限于描述性故事，而是讲述解释性故事，他们解释这场环境和人类灾难的方式也随着时间的推移而发生了变化。所有这些方面对于理解沙尘暴以及我们讲述的故事都是不可或缺的。

History is full of stories. Stories are how we share what happened in bygone days and how we make sense of that past. Often, they are what initially piques our interest to explore the past and its specifics and significance. And these stories require making innumerable choices: Whose story will we tell? What events will we focus on? What are the critical specifics for weaving an accurate story about that past? Unlike Steinbeck’s stunning piece of fiction, historical stories must stick to the documentary record and be supported by evidence.¹ In this chapter, we examine various stories about the Dust Bowl, first the stories of those left behind, then stories of explanation—how did the Dust Bowl happen? Historians move beyond descriptive stories to tell explanatory stories, and the ways that they have explained this environmental and human disaster have changed over time. All of these aspects are integral to understanding the Dust Bowl and the stories we tell about it.

我们讲述谁的故事？

Whose Story Do We Tell?

卡罗琳·亨德森 (Caroline Henderson) 是一名教师，于 1907 年搬到俄克拉荷马州狭长地带，同年印第安人和俄克拉荷马领地合并成为一个州。卡罗琳在那里度过了近 60 年，遇见了她的丈夫，建造了家园，抚养了女儿，获得了文学硕士学位，并为杂志和期刊写作。她的文章充满了清晰而令人信服的描述，有助于引起全国对沙尘暴居民在最黑暗时期的困境的关注。

Caroline Henderson was a schoolteacher who moved to the Oklahoma Panhandle in 1907, the year the Indian and Oklahoma territories joined to become a state. Caroline would spend almost 60 years there, meeting her husband, building a homestead, raising a daughter, earning her master’s degree in literature, and writing for magazines and journals. Her articles, filled with clear and compelling descriptions, helped to bring national attention to the plight of the Dust Bowl residents during its darkest days.

“沙尘暴”指的是20世纪30年代遭受侵蚀和沙尘暴最严重的大平原地区。该地区包括俄克拉荷马州、德克萨斯州、堪萨斯州、科罗拉多州的部分地区以及新墨西哥州和内布拉斯加州的较小地区，面积约 1 亿英亩，占大平原的三分之一以上。在该地区内，“吹袭区域”的大小和位置发生了变化，促使历史学家唐纳德·沃斯特（Donald Worster）将沙尘暴称为“一个事件，也是一个地点”。²受灾最严重的地区是德克萨斯州和俄克拉荷马州狭长地带堪萨斯州西南角。在风暴最严重的几年（1935 年至 1937 年）期间，这种不断变化的打击区域覆盖了大约 5000 万英亩的南部平原。

The “Dust Bowl” refers to the region of the Great Plains that suffered the erosion and dust storms in the 1930s most acutely. This region, encompassing parts of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and smaller areas of New Mexico and Nebraska, extended approximately 100 million acres, or over one-third of the Great Plains. Within that region, the “blow area” shifted in size and location, prompting historian Donald Worster to call the Dust Bowl “an event as well as a locality.”² The hardest-hit areas were the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles and the southwestern corner of Kansas. Between the worst years of the storms, 1935–1937, this shifting blow area covered approximately 50 million acres of the southern plains.

该地区是美国大陆最后有人定居的地区之一。由于树木稀少、降雨少、气温高，这里被称为“美国大沙漠”和“无人区”。³来自青翠、水资源丰富的南部、中西部和东部的定居者并不急于尝试在这种半干旱气候下耕作。促进向西定居的铁路直到 1916 年才到达俄克拉荷马州狭长地带，加剧了该地区的孤立。

This area was one of the last regions in the continental United States to be settled. With few trees, little rainfall, and high temperatures, it had been called both the Great American Desert and No Man’s Land.³ Settlers from the verdant, water-rich South, Midwest, and East weren’t anxious to try farming in this semi-arid climate. And the railroads that facilitated westward settlement didn’t reach the Oklahoma Panhandle until 1916, adding to the region’s isolation.

卡罗琳·亨德森 (Caroline Henderson) 是该地区 20 世纪早期定居者的一部分。她会在繁荣的岁月里在那里，那时正常的（尽管仍然稀少的）降雨、战时对粮食的需求以及铁路帮助创造了经济的美好时光。但她所经历的困难多于美好。在 1932 年至 1940 年间，即沙尘暴时期，那些艰难时期变得几乎难以忍受。⁴

Caroline Henderson was part of the early-20th-century settlement of this region. She would be there during its prosperous years, when normal (if still sparse) rainfall, wartime demand for grain, and the railroad helped create economic good times. But she would suffer more hard times than good. And those hard times became almost unbearable during 1932–1940, the years of the Dust Bowl.⁴

1935年4月14日，一场巨大的沙尘暴袭击了该地区。科罗拉多州巴卡县东南部的 JH 沃德 (JH Ward) 看到不祥的厚云从山上滚滚向他袭来；当云接近并吞噬其路径上的一切时，他拍摄了一定是可怕的景象（来源6.1））。民谣歌手伍迪·格思里（Woody Guthrie）那天会写一首歌曲，其标题令人毛骨悚然：“再见，认识你真是太好了。” 格思里写道，他离开了“德克萨斯州西部平原”的家，因为他必须“漂流”，更不祥的是，沙尘暴“如雷霆般袭来”，看起来就像“世界末日”，捕捉到了害怕他的邻居。4 月的那个日子后来被称为“黑色星期日”，很可能是 20 世纪 30 年代袭击平原的最严重的沙尘暴。第二天，美联社记者罗伯特·E·盖革创造了“灰尘碗”这个词。⁵

On April 14, 1935, a huge dust storm hit the region. J. H. Ward, in the southeastern county of Baca, Colorado, saw the ominous, thick cloud rolling over the hill toward him; he took photos of what must have been a terrifying sight as the cloud approached, swallowing everything in its path (Source 6.1). Folksinger Woody Guthrie would write a song that day, with the eerie title “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh.” Guthrie wrote about leaving his home on “the west Texas plains,” as he had “to be driftin’ along,” and more ominously that the dust storm “hit like thunder” and seemed like “the end of the world,” capturing the fear of his neighbors. That April day would come to be known as Black Sunday and was likely the worst dust storm that hit the Plains during the 1930s. The very next day, the term “Dust Bowl” was coined by Associated Press reporter Robert E. Geiger.⁵

被称为“滚滚”和“黑色暴风雪”的沙尘暴在“肮脏的三十年代”相对频繁。1932 年，至少有 14 场风暴袭击了该地区，从 1933 年到 1938 年，风暴次数超过 300 场。 6^这些风暴大多发生在冬季和春季，使天空变黑，席卷整个大地，渗透到房屋、眼睛、和肺——灰尘一旦落下，就无处可逃。各个年龄段的人都患有“粉尘肺炎”。建筑物和农作物被覆盖和毁坏，学校和城镇关闭，交通停止，人们想知道世界末日是否已经发生，以及他们做了什么而应得的。

Dust storms known as “rollers” and “black blizzards” were relatively frequent in the “dirty ’30s.” In 1932, at least 14 storms hit the region, and from 1933 to 1938, there were more than 300.⁶ Mostly occurring in the winter and spring, these storms blackened the sky, sweeping over and through the landscape, infiltrating homes, eyes, and lungs—once the dust descended, there was no escape. People of all ages suffered from “dust pneumonia.” Buildings and crops were covered and destroyed, schools and towns shut down, transportation stopped, and people wondered whether Armageddon had hit and what they had done to deserve it.

风暴对沙尘暴地区造成了严重破坏，并蔓延到更远的地方。巨大的尘埃云穿过大陆，到达东部和南部海岸。1934 年 5 月，《纽约时报》的头条新闻宣称：“巨大的尘云，吹过 1,500 英里，在迪姆斯市 5 小时内飞行。” 据估计，这片云有 1,800 英里宽，重 3 亿吨，使纽约市空气中的尘埃颗粒增加了 2.7 倍。⁷在距大西洋海岸 300 英里的地方，船只报告甲板上有灰尘，而后来的风暴则在墨西哥湾沿岸留下了残留物。⁸

The storms wreaked havoc on the Dust Bowl region and extended beyond. Giant clouds of dust advanced across the continent to both Eastern and Southern coasts. In May 1934, headlines in the New York Times proclaimed, “Huge Dust Cloud, Blown 1,500 Miles, Dims City 5 Hours.” That cloud was estimated to be 1,800 miles wide, weigh 300 million tons, and increase the dust particles in the air in New York City by 2.7 times.⁷ Three hundred miles off the Atlantic Coast, ships reported dust on their decks, while later storms left a residue along the Gulf Coast.⁸

但黑色星期日风暴被一位堪萨斯州居民称为“最黑暗的一天”。⁹前几周遭受猛烈风暴袭击的居民迎来了今天早上的晴好天气。然而，原本是一个美丽的周日，气温在 80 多度，地平线清晰可见，但很快就变成了一场可怕的风暴，以至于宝琳·温克勒·格雷 (Pauline Winkler Gray) 后来记得当时的想法是“世界末日”。¹⁰据报道，风暴从北达科他州向南和向西移动，进入堪萨斯州和科罗拉多州，风暴宽 200 英里，移动速度为每小时 65 英里。气温迅速下降；与其他目击者的呼应，沃德的照片显示了晴朗的天空和向他冲来的大量表土之间的对比。“天空仿佛被分成了两个相对的世界……蔚蓝的天空，金色的阳光，宁静；......[和]一道由沸腾的黑色尘埃组成的险恶的帷幕。” ¹¹一名男孩在堪萨斯州海斯与朋友玩耍时跑回家，但无法赶上暴风雨——第二天，他被发现被灰尘窒息身亡。难怪许多人逃离了尘暴区。暴风雨是袭击居民经济生计、健康安全、威胁日常生活的顽敌。

But the Black Sunday storm was what one Kansas resident called “the darkest day of all.”⁹ Residents who had suffered ferocious storms in prior weeks welcomed the fine weather that morning. Yet what started as a beautiful Sunday with temperatures in the 80s and a clear view of the horizon quickly descended into a storm so terrible that Pauline Winkler Grey later remembered thinking “it was the end of the world.”¹⁰ Moving from North Dakota southerly and westerly into Kansas and Colorado, the storm was reported to be 200 miles wide and moving at 65 miles an hour. Temperatures dropped quickly; echoing other eyewitnesses, Ward’s photograph shows the contrast between the clear sky and the tons of topsoil barreling toward him. “It was as though the sky was divided into two opposite worlds … blue sky, golden sunlight and tranquility; … [and] a menacing curtain of boiling black dust.”¹¹ One boy, playing with a friend in Hays, Kansas, ran for home but couldn’t out-pace the storm—the next day he was found smothered to death by dust. Little wonder that many fled the Dust Bowl. The storms were an implacable enemy that attacked residents’ economic livelihood, health, and safety, and threatened daily life.

但有些人留下来了。卡罗琳·亨德森 (Caroline Henderson) 是在最黑暗的日子里继续生活在该地区的大约 10 个人中的 7 人之一。¹² 1935 年 4 月，她写了一封题为“吃的灰尘”的信，并发送给富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福的农业部长亨利·华莱士（来源6.2））。在这封冗长的信中，人们明白了为什么亨德森因向她的同时代人讲述了沙尘暴居民的经历和勇气而受到赞誉。亨德森描述了她 27 年自耕农生涯中发生的“奇妙”变化，“连绵不绝的水牛草皮已经让位于耕地”，杰斐逊式自耕农生活的梦想似乎触手可及。但当干旱和沙尘来袭时，“日常的身体折磨、精神混乱和勇气的逐渐消磨”威胁要摧毁这个梦想。亨德森声称风暴的“痛苦现实……和剧烈不适”难以形容，但她继续生动地描述了它们的日常细节。

Yet some stayed. Caroline Henderson was one of the approximately 7 of 10 people who continued to live in the region during its blackest days.¹² In April 1935, she penned a letter entitled “Dust to Eat” and sent it to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace (Source 6.2). In the lengthy letter, one sees why Henderson was credited with informing her contemporaries about the Dust Bowl residents’ experiences and courage. Henderson wrote of the “marvelous” changes that had occurred in her 27 years as a homesteader, where “unbroken buffalo grass sod has given way to cultivated fields,” and dreams of a Jeffersonian yeoman farmer’s life seemed within reach. But when drought and dust came, the “daily physical torture, confusion of mind, [and] gradual wearing down of courage” threatened to destroy that dream. Henderson claimed the “bitter reality … and violent discomfort” of the storms were too great to describe, but she goes on to write vividly of their daily details.

亨德森描述了将平原转变为农场所付出的希望和努力，描述了沙尘暴造成的灾难以及政府对这场灾难的反应，并以希望结束——这种希望与她的记忆相结合，让她坚定不移。农场。她对联邦政府对该地区的援助表示赞赏，并认为联邦政府防止了更多废弃的宅基地和农场的出现，这一说法后来得到了历史学家的支持。¹³

Henderson wrote of the hope and effort it took to transform the Plains into farms, described the disaster wrought by the Dust Bowl and the government response to that disaster, and ended with hope—a hope that, combined with her memories, held her on her farm. She applauded the federal government’s aid to the region, and credited it with preventing even more abandoned homesteads and farms, a claim later supported by historians.¹³

劳伦斯·斯沃比达 (Lawrence Svobida) 留下了他自己在沙尘暴中幸存的经历（来源 6.3和6.4）。1929年，斯沃比达在堪萨斯州西南角的米德县（距亨德森不远）定居。他只会停留足够长的时间来经历最严重的灾难。他 1940 年出版的书《耕种尘暴：来自堪萨斯州的第一手资料》，还描述了这场灾难及其造成的损失。“大风……砍断了植物……然后开始拔掉根部……” 他们吹走了表土”，留下了“几乎和混凝土一样坚硬的地面……” [这是]一股超出我最疯狂想象的毁灭性力量。” 斯沃比达关注的是对农民赖以生存的土地的破坏。他的叙述重申了其他人的说法，即绿色植物生命被消灭，该地区正在恢复到早期美国人所说的：美国大沙漠。

Lawrence Svobida left behind his own account of surviving the Dust Bowl (Sources 6.3 and 6.4). In 1929, Svobida settled in Meade County in the southwest corner of Kansas (not far from Henderson). He would stay just long enough to experience the worst of the disaster. His 1940 book, Farming the Dust Bowl: A First-Hand Account from Kansas, also described the disaster and the damage it wrought. The “gales … chopped off the plants … then proceeded to take the roots out…. They blew away the topsoil,” and left behind a ground that was “almost as hard as concrete…. [It was] a destroying force beyond my wildest imaginings.” Svobida focused on the destruction of the land that was the farmer’s lifeblood. His account reiterated what others said, that green plant life was wiped out and the region was reverting to what earlier Americans had called it: the Great American Desert.

那么忍受沙尘暴是什么感觉呢？尽管不像移民那样广为人知，但那些留下来的人的故事让我们以戏剧性的视角看到了我们原本会错过的过去。记者蒂莫西·伊根 (Timothy Egan) 在其 2006 年出版的副标题为《那些在美国大沙尘暴中幸存下来的人》的书中，将他们的故事称为“最艰难的时期”。这本书获得了三项大奖，证明了这些被忽视的故事的力量。

So what was it like to endure the Dust Bowl? Although not as well known as those of the migrants, the stories of those who stayed give us a dramatic view into a past we would otherwise miss. In his 2006 book, subtitled “Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl,” journalist Timothy Egan called their story The Worst Hard Time. The book received three awards, testifying to the power of these overlooked stories.

沙尘暴产生的原因是什么？我们讲什么故事？

What Caused the Dust Bowl? What Story Do We Tell?

然而，关于这一事件还有其他故事可讲。历史学家讲述的故事可以解释事件发生的原因。第一手资料是这些解释的主要证据来源之一，亨德森和斯沃比达的摘录都让我们得以一窥沙尘暴的成因。

Yet there are other stories to be told about this event. Historians tell stories that explain why events happen. Primary sources are one major source of evidence for those explanations, and both the Henderson and Svobida excerpts provide glimpses into the causes of the Dust Bowl.

亨德森庆祝了她在平原看到的变化，那里的耕地取代了草皮，而新机械“彻底改变了农业工作方法”。另一方面，斯沃比达对同样的变化有不同的看法。他同意“电力农业”的重要影响，但称其为“平原的丧钟”而不是福音。他的回忆录讲述了七种农作物歉收的情况，而亨德森则在 4 年前撰写，当时她的土地耕种取得了成功。这些因素可能有助于形成他们对这种转变的不同看法，但两个故事都承认大平原发生了巨大的变化，而农业方法是主要原因。

Henderson celebrated the changes she saw in the Plains, where cultivated fields had defeated grass sod, and new machinery “revolutionized methods of farm work.” Svobida, on the other hand, viewed the same changes differently. He agreed on the important impact of “power farming,” but called it “the death knell of the Plains” rather than a boon. His memoir recounts seven failed crops, whereas Henderson wrote 4 years earlier, following success in farming her land. These factors may have helped to shape their differing views of the transformation, but both stories recognized that massive changes had occurred to the Great Plains, and that farming methods were largely responsible.

一份关于沙尘暴成因的当代报告也认同这一结论（来源6.5、6.6和6.7 ））。1933 年 3 月，富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福总统上任时，沙尘暴正如火如荼地进行。1936 年 7 月，总统要求提供一份关于危机原因的报告，以便采取措施防止危机再次发生。大平原干旱地区委员会进行了一项“初步研究”，其中包括查阅现有记录，并对受影响最严重的地区进行为期两周的考察，从德克萨斯州狭长地带的阿马里洛到北达科他州拉皮德城。该委员会包括工程进度管理局和负责土地利用、农业和土壤保持的政府机构的领导。这是一个令人印象深刻的小组，由农村电气化管理局局长莫里斯·库克（Morris Cooke）担任主席，成员包括移民局局长雷克斯福德·G·塔格韦尔（Rexford G. Tugwell）和农业部长亨利·A·华莱士（Henry A. Wallace）。

This conclusion was shared by a contemporary report into the causes of the Dust Bowl (Sources 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March 1933, the Dust Bowl was in full swing. In July 1936, the president asked for a report on the causes of the crisis so that steps could be taken to prevent another. The Great Plains Drought Area Committee conducted a “preliminary study” that included consulting available records and taking a 2-week trip through the most severely affected areas from Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle to Rapid City, North Dakota. The Committee included leaders of the Works Progress Administration and government agencies in charge of land use, agriculture, and soil conservation. It was an impressive group, chaired by Morris Cooke, Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration, and included Rexford G. Tugwell, Administrator of the Resettlement Agency, and Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture. Such an esteemed delegation indicated that Roosevelt saw the Dust Bowl as an important national problem—as did the millions of dollars spent on conservation of physical assets and aid to the region following his inauguration.

1936 年 8 月底，该委员会向总统发布了他们的“个人机密”报告。其中包括重要的结论。四年的干旱并不是沙尘暴灾难的真正罪魁祸首。“过度种植、过度放牧和不适当的耕作方法”是罪魁祸首。“错误的公共政策”在很大程度上负有责任，包括国家的宅基地政策和鼓励错误的农业制度。（报告开头的两幅地图显示，大平原是一个“降雨量显着偏低”和“风速较高”的地区。他们指出，改变的不是天气，而是定居模式。和农业。）总统委员会发现，预防未来的灾难——确实，确保该地区的未来——将取决于“农业实践符合自然条件的程度”，而这些在几十年来一直严重失调。报告很明确：沙尘暴不是一场自然灾害。这是一个人造的。

At the end of August 1936, the committee issued their “personal and confidential” report to the president. It included important conclusions. The 4 years of drought were not the real culprit for the Dust Bowl disaster. “Over cropping, over grazing, and improper farm methods” were to blame. “Mistaken public policies” were largely responsible, including the country’s homesteading policy and the encouragement of a misguided system of agriculture. (Two maps, early in the report, showed the Great Plains as a region of “predominantly low rainfall” and “high wind velocity.” They made the point that it wasn’t the weather that had changed, but rather the patterns of settlement and farming.) The president’s committee found that preventing future disasters—indeed, ensuring the future of the region—would depend “on the degree to which farming practices conform to natural conditions,” and that these had been badly misaligned for decades. The report was clear: The Dust Bowl was not a natural disaster. It was a man-made one.

该报告包括以确定土地使用区域为中心的“行动方针”，这需要政府的参与和监督。哪个地区更适合耕种或放牧？哪些土地需要开垦为草地？哪种草最能保护土壤？需要重新考虑水权，地方、州和联邦政府必须收回私人土地，以规划和控制其使用。农民需要参与土壤保护，社区需要共同努力建设更可持续的土地利用区域。救济计划以及政府的参与和监管将有助于促进这些进步。该报告呼吁制定“协调一致的合作计划”并指出，“任何有价值的计划的根本目的都不是减少该地区的人口，而是使其永久适宜居住。任何其他结果都将是国家失败，其有形和无形的影响将远远超出受影响地区。”

The report included “lines of action” that centered on identifying land use regions, something that would require government involvement and oversight. Was an area more suited to farming or cattle grazing? Which land would need to be reclaimed as grassland? What kinds of grasses would best conserve the soil? Water rights needed to be reconsidered, and local, state, and Federal governments would have to reclaim private lands in order to plan and control their use. Farmers needed to engage in soil conservation and communities needed to work together to build more sustainable land use regions. Relief programs would help promote these advancements, along with government involvement and regulation. The report called for a “coordinated program of cooperation” and stated, “The fundamental purpose of any worthwhile program must be not to depopulate the region but to make it permanently habitable. Any other outcome would be a national failure which would have its effects, tangible and intangible, far beyond the affected area.”

对沙尘暴的解释主要集中在变幻莫测的天气上，对这些调查人员来说影响不大。该委员会的报告为一场人为灾难提供了令人信服的理由，这场灾难不仅是由个人定居者造成的，而且也是由不适合该地区的政府政策造成的。即便如此，该报告并不一定会改变每个人对这场灾难的看法。对于许多人来说，单是下雨就可以让平原地区的美好时光回归。卡罗琳·亨德森哀叹干旱问题的“一个令人满意的解决方案”“超出了人类的控制范围”，这是一种普遍的情绪。居民们祈求下雨，以扭转他们的命运。（当德克萨斯州达尔哈特的居民试图炸毁云层以迫使降雨时，至少有一个社区采取了行动。）¹⁴

Explanations for the Dust Bowl that focused on the vagaries of weather held little sway for these investigators. The committee’s report made a compelling case for a man-made disaster, wrought not only by individual settlers, but also by government policies ill-suited to the region. Even so, the report did not necessarily change everyone’s views of the catastrophe. For many people, rain alone could spell a return of good times to the Plains. Caroline Henderson’s lament that the “one satisfactory solution” to the problem of drought “is beyond all human control” was a common sentiment. Residents prayed for rain to turn their fortunes around. (At least one community took matters into their hands when residents of Dalhart, Texas, tried dynamiting the clouds in order to force rain from them.)¹⁴

报告提出了“行动方针”，并呼吁各级政府在“农业实践重组”方面进行合作，表明解决危机的办法不仅仅是等待下雨。从这方面来说，它可以被解读为一份充满希望的文件，就像卡罗琳·亨德森在最黑暗的风暴中保持希望一样。通过开垦、土壤保持和协调努力，可以更明智地耕种平原，使其永久适宜居住。如果做不到这一点，那就是“国家的失败”。

With its “lines of action” and call for government at all levels to cooperate on the “reorganization of farming practices,” the report suggested that solutions to the crisis existed beyond waiting for rain. In that respect, it can be read as a hopeful document, just as Caroline Henderson held onto hope through the darkest storms. The Plains could be farmed more wisely and made permanently habitable through reclamation, soil conservation, and coordinated efforts. Anything less would be a “national failure.”

事实上，沙尘暴事件不仅引起了联邦政府的调查。国家基金和计划的设立是为了缓解居民的困难并支持合理利用土地。应用于该地区的第一个政府计划是由国会发起的饲料和种子贷款基金，在红十字会被证明不足以完成这项任务后，赫伯特·胡佛总统不情愿地批准了这项计划。普莱恩斯选民知道需要更多帮助，他们在 1932 年一反常态地投票给民主党，帮助选举了罗斯福。罗斯福在危机的围困下，在上任的头100天内通过了一系列新政计划。虽然他们都没有直接针对沙尘暴地区，但他们建立了机构——最著名的是农业调整管理局（AAA）——来监督后来的努力。

Indeed, the Dust Bowl had not only attracted investigation by the federal government. National funds and programs were set up to ease the hardship of residents and support wise use of the land. The first government program applied to the region was a feed-and-seed loan fund initiated by Congress and reluctantly approved by President Herbert Hoover after the Red Cross had proven inadequate to the task. Plains voters, who knew that more help was needed, uncharacteristically voted Democrat in 1932, helping to elect Roosevelt. Besieged by crises, Roosevelt passed a flurry of New Deal programs in his first 100 days. While none of them directly targeted the Dust Bowl region, they established agencies—most notably the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)—that would oversee later efforts. When drought conditions worsened dramatically and the huge dust storm of May 24, 1934, hit the East Coast, national efforts accelerated.

1934 年 6 月，罗斯福通过了一项价值 5.25 亿美元的干旱救助计划，其中包括以紧急贷款、收入补贴、就业计划和政府购买牛的形式向农民和牧民提供援助。农民和牧民也因减少产量而获得报酬。其中包括用于收购土地并将其退还草地、重新安置居民以及建立树木防护林的资金。这种援助将持续整个十年，但减产付款除外，最高法院在 1936 年认为这种做法违宪。（随后的努力转向支持种植土壤保持植物和消除消耗土壤的作物。）

In June 1934, Roosevelt got a $525 million drought relief package passed that included aid to farmers and cattlemen in the form of emergency loans, income supplements, job programs, and government purchase of cattle. Farmers and cattlemen were also paid for reducing production. Included were monies to acquire lands and return them to grass, relocate residents, and create a shelterbelt of trees. Such aid would continue throughout the decade, with the notable exception of payments for production reduction, which were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1936. (Subsequent efforts shifted to support for planting soil-conserving plants and eliminating soil-depleting crops.)

农民获得了保护土壤以种植未来农作物的援助。正如斯沃比达所描述的，剥离上市——垂直于风向犁深犁沟以尽量减少风吹——是实现这一目标的核心策略。支持脱衣上市的联邦资金通过当地机构到达农民手中。这意味着即使在最严重的干旱年份农民也有工作。

Farmers received aid to conserve their soil for future crops. As Svobida described, strip listing—plowing deep furrows perpendicular to the winds to minimize blowing—was a core strategy for doing this. Federal monies to support strip listing passed through local institutions into farmers’ hands. This meant that farmers had work even during the worst drought years.

联邦对平原地区的援助持续了整个 20 世纪 30 年代。一般来说，联邦计划有两个主要目的：使该地区恢复到以前的生产和繁荣水平，以及保存和保护土地。总而言之，此类援助意味着平原居民获得的人均援助与大萧条期间该国任何群体一样多或更多。

Federal aid to the Plains area persisted throughout the 1930s. Generally, the Federal programs had two main purposes: restoring the area to former levels of production and prosperity, and conserving and protecting the land. In combination, such aid meant that Plains residents received as much or more per capita than any group in the country during the Great Depression.

人们顺应自然。沙尘暴是一场自然灾害，是恶劣气候条件造成的吗？还是人们的行为导致了这场悲剧？政府 1936 年的报告对原因的描述正确吗？政府政策和行动在“肮脏的30年代”的形成和管理中发挥了什么作用？

People Acted on Nature. Was the Dust Bowl a natural disaster, the result of severe climate conditions? Or did people’s actions cause this tragedy? Was the government’s 1936 report right in its characterization of causes? What role did government policies and actions play in making and managing the “dirty ’30s”?

历史学家在其中一些问题上达成了一致，但在其他问题上仍然存在争论。第一个问题可能是最简单的。哈利·C·麦克迪恩 (Harry C. McDean) 在 1986 年发表的一篇题​​为“沙尘暴史学”的文章中指出了现代历史学家的共识，“沙尘暴不是一场自然灾害；而是一场灾难”。这是人类对自然的所作所为造成的灾难。” ¹⁵

Historians agree on some of these matters, but debate persists on others. The first question is likely the easiest. In a 1986 article titled “Dust Bowl Historiography,” Harry C. McDean identified a consensus among modern historians “that the Dust Bowl was not a natural disaster; it was a disaster caused by what people did to nature.”¹⁵

人们到底对自然做了什么？历史学家唐纳德·沃斯特 (Donald Worster) 在其 1979 年获奖著作《沙尘暴：1930 年代的南部平原》中讲述了这些事件的引人入胜的故事（来源 6.9））。沃斯特的书的第二部分题为“尘埃前奏”，包括“是什么让地球团结在一起”和“Sodbusting”两章。这些标题是对一个以草为生的土地如何因过度放牧和粗放农业而被破坏的故事的速记。沃斯特写道：“一个古老而独特的生态综合体已被人类破坏，使人类无法抵御自然灾害，土地任由风吹走。这不是第一次大部分自然植被死亡，但这是唯一一次由于人类故意采取的策略而发生的情况。” ¹⁶

What exactly did people do to nature? Historian Donald Worster told a compelling story of these events in his award-winning 1979 book, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s (Source 6.9). Part Two of Worster’s book is entitled “Prelude to Dust” and includes the two chapters “What Holds the Earth Together” and “Sodbusting.” These titles serve as shorthand for the story of how a land dependent on grass was destroyed by overgrazing and extensive farming. Worster wrote, “An old and unique ecological complex has been destroyed by man, leaving him with no buffer against the elements, leaving the land free to blow away. It was not the first time some large part of the natural vegetation had died, but it was the only time that it had happened because of a deliberate strategy carried out by human beings.”¹⁶

沃斯特的《从前》从地质历史开始，然后讨论了土壤发育、气候模式以及南部平原的动植物群。他提到史前人类和平原印第安文化，这种文化“在各个方面都接受草的首要地位”，并“表现出一种生态克制的模式”。¹⁷沃斯特将此与印第安人大部分被推入保留地后抵达的定居者的态度进行了对比。

Worster’s “once upon a time” began with geologic history, then discussed soil development, climate patterns, and the flora and fauna of the southern Plains. He mentioned prehistoric man and the Plains Indian culture, which accepted “in every way the primacy of the grass” and “showed a pattern of ecological restraint.”¹⁷ Worster contrasted this with the attitudes of settlers who arrived after the Indians had largely been pushed onto reservations.

直到内战结束后，南部平原才有人定居。直到1880年代，到来的定居者大多从事养牛业。命运瞬息万变：1880 年，牧民在屠宰场赚得盆满钵满价格上涨，但 1886 年的严冬使牛群大量死亡，85% 死亡。¹⁸沃斯特称这种命运的逆转是未来事物的预兆。平原印第安人战争的结束和 1880 年代初高于平均水平的降雨量将更多的农民带到了南部平原，随之而来的是该地区大规模但不均衡的农业经济转型。

The southern Plains were not settled until after the Civil War. Until the 1880s, the settlers who came were mostly involved with raising cattle. Fortunes changed quickly: In 1880 cattlemen earned high slaughterhouse prices, but the harsh winter of 1886 decimated the herds, and 85% perished.¹⁸ Worster called this reversal of fortune a harbinger of things to come. The end of the Plains Indian Wars and above-average rainfall in the early 1880s brought more farmers to the southern Plains, and with them, the region’s large-scale if uneven transformation to a farming economy.

由于农业的兴衰变迁，再加上坚硬的土壤、周期性的虫害和恶劣的气候，这些来到这里的人都难以谋生。许多人转向经济作物，尤其是小麦，破土种植更多农作物，希望能够盈利。1890 年至 1910 年间，农场数量和耕地面积猛增。1890 年，堪萨斯州、科罗拉多州和德克萨斯州 22 个县有 5,762 个农场和牧场，平均面积为 256 英亩。到 1910 年，农场数量及其相对规模增加了一倍。农场继续增长，1920 年平均面积为 771 英亩：到 1930 年，平均面积达到 813 英亩。¹⁹随着耕种的面积越来越多，越来越多的草皮被破坏。在经济好的时候，农民会种植更多的农作物来赚取更多的利润。在经济不好的时候，他们种植了更多的土地来弥补损失。

Those who arrived struggled to make a living, given the vicissitudes of farming, exacerbated by the difficult soils, periodic pest infestations, and hostile climate. Many turned to cash crops, especially wheat, breaking more sod to plant more crops in hopes of turning a profit. Between 1890 and 1910, the number of farms and amount of land under cultivation soared. In 1890, 5,762 farms and ranches in a 22-county area in Kansas, Colorado, and Texas had an average size of 256 acres. By 1910, the number of farms and their relative sizes had doubled. Farms continued to grow and in 1920 averaged 771 acres: by 1930, the average size reached 813 acres.¹⁹ More and more sod was busted as more and more acres were cultivated. During good times, farmers planted additional crops to make more profit. During the bad, they planted more acres to make up their losses.

大平原报告中的两张图片捕捉到了这些巨大的变化（来源 6.5和6.6）。第一个展示了平原的原始地被植物，主要​​是西部边界的草和树木，偶尔在东南部地区。该地区树木和木材稀缺，定居者必须用草皮建造房屋。²⁰第二张图片展示了从 1879 年到 1929 年期间，用于农业的面积迅速扩大，从平原大规模农业定居之前开始，到灾难性的沙尘暴年份的风口浪尖结束。随后的30年，种植面积增加了一倍以上，绝对总面积增加超过6000万英亩！

These tremendous changes are captured by two images from the Great Plains Report (Sources 6.5 and 6.6). The first shows the Plains’ original groundcover, dominated by grasses with trees along the western border and occasionally in the southeastern area. Trees and lumber were scarce in the region, and settlers necessarily built homes from the sod itself.²⁰ The second visual shows the rapidly expanding acres dedicated to farming, spanning the years 1879–1929, starting just before large-scale agricultural settlement of the Plains and ending on the cusp of the disastrous Dust Bowl years. The later 30 years saw cultivation increase more than twofold for an absolute total increase of more than 60 million acres!

创新的农业机械使破草和种植农作物的效率更高，并加速了土地从草地到农场的彻底改造。19世纪末的工业革命不仅发生在制造业，也发生在农业。农场变得更大、更像工厂，而机器取代了人力。钢犁更容易犁开坚硬的草皮，拖拉机取代了马来耕作，联合收割机等机器可以同时做几件事（收割和脱粒小麦）。这种农用设备意味着农民可以更快地耕种土地，并且花费更少的精力。

Innovative farm machinery made breaking the sod and planting crops more efficient, and accelerated the radical remaking of land from grassland to farm. The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century happened not only in manufacturing, but in agriculture as well. Farms became larger and more factorylike, while machines replaced human effort. Steel plows broke the tough sod more easily, tractors replaced horses for tilling, and machines like combines could do several things at once (harvest and thresh the wheat). Such farming equipment meant that farmers could break and farm the land more quickly and with much less elbow grease.

更多的农作物意味着更多的利润。有些人将 1910 年代和 1920 年代称为“大犁耕期”。当第一次世界大战导致俄罗斯小麦生产停顿、国际粮食需求增加时，农民扩大了耕地，以满足战后持续存在的需求。整个 20 年代，小麦价格基本保持稳定，拖拉机不断耕种新田。1925 年至 1930 年间，农民“毁坏了南部平原 5,260,000 英亩的原生植被，这一面积几乎是罗德岛州的七倍”。²¹即使有如此多的农业生产，繁荣也并不能得到保证：农民面临着新机械的成本、微乎其微的犯错空间，以及随着 20 年代的到来，欧洲竞争的回归。

More crops meant more profit. Some have called the 1910s and 1920s the “Great Plow-up.” When World War I shut down Russian wheat production and increased international demand for grain, farmers expanded their fields to meet demand that persisted beyond the Great War. Wheat prices stayed mostly stable throughout the 1920s, and the tractors kept plowing new fields. Between 1925 and 1930, farmers “tore up the native vegetation on 5,260,000 acres in the southern plains—an area nearly seven times as large as the state of Rhode Island.”²¹ Even with all this farming, prosperity wasn’t assured: Farmers faced the cost of new machinery, slim margins for error, and the return of European competition as the 1920s roared on.

辉煌时代催生了一种新的机会主义者，他们依靠的机器可以一天耕几英亩，一次耕种数百英亩。这些机会主义者被称为“手提箱农民”，他们会种植庄稼，然后离开，依靠机会判断庄稼是否茂盛或枯萎。他们不是传统的美国农民，在他们家人居住的家园里工作，并以此为生。与更多的永久居民相比，这些佃农和缺席农民不太可能关心维持土地生产力或使用土壤保持方法。在最坏的情况下，手提箱农民只会减少损失并放弃耕种的土地，不采取任何保护措施。但事实上，诸如在农作物残茬下耕作、轮作田地等做法，

Glory times spawned a new kind of opportunist who depended on machines that could plow acres in a day and farm hundreds of acres at a time. Known as “suitcase farmers,” these opportunists would plant a crop and then leave, relying on chance as to whether the crop flourished or withered. These were not the traditional American farmers, working a homestead where their family lived and upon which their livelihood depended. Such tenant and absentee farmers were less likely to care about sustaining the land’s productivity or using soil conservation methods than more permanent residents. In the worst cases, suitcase farmers would simply cut their losses and abandon their tilled fields, applying no conservation methods whatsoever. But, in fact, practices like plowing under crop residue, rotating fields, and leaving bare stalks to stabilize the soil—all of which conserved the topsoil—were not common for many southern Plains farmers.

历史学家不同意。历史学家对沙尘暴的许多原因达成了一致，包括破坏草皮、过度耕作、农业机械化和缺乏土壤保护。但首先是什么导致人们参与这些实践呢？唐纳德·沃斯特 (Donald Worster) 认为，美国的资本主义文化最终导致了沙尘暴（来源 6.8）。“资本主义——工业化和前工业化——对地球的态度是帝国主义和商业化的；它的主导价值观没有教导人们对环境的谦卑、敬畏或克制。这是驱使美国人进入草原并决定他们使用草原的方式的文化动力。” ²²

Historians Disagree. Historians agreed on many causes of the dust storms, including sod-busting, over-farming, farm mechanization, and lack of soil conservation. But what causes people to engage in these practices in the first place? Donald Worster argued that it was the American culture of capitalism that ultimately caused the Dust Bowl (Source 6.8). “The attitude of capitalism—industrial and pre-industrial—toward the earth was imperial and commercial; none of its ruling values taught environmental humility, reverence, or restraint. This was the cultural impetus that drove Americans into the grassland and determined the way they would use it.”²²

唐纳德·沃斯特讲述了一个引人入胜的故事，内容丰富，描述生动，论证有力。这是一个历史故事，使用各种证据来解释沙尘暴。它与其他关于沙尘暴的描述形成鲜明对比，它将原因归咎于资本主义对利润的无节制的胃口。

Donald Worster told a compelling story, richly detailed with vivid descriptions and forceful arguments. It is a historical story, one that explains the Dust Bowl using varied kinds of evidence. And it stands in contrast to other accounts of the Dust Bowl by attributing cause to capitalism’s unbridled appetite for profit.

Worster 的书出版两年后，R. Douglas Hurt 的《沙尘暴》一致认为“人类的居住……以及……新农业技术的采用”导致了沙尘暴（来源 6.9）。²³然而，赫特并没有将资本主义视为主要原因。相反，他讲述了一个相互关联的因素的故事，平衡了自然和人为因素，比如干旱摧毁了有助于稳定土壤的农作物，以及人类“对土地的技术滥用”。

Published 2 years after Worster’s book, R. Douglas Hurt’s The Dust Bowl agreed that “man’s inhabitation … and … adoption of a new agricultural technology” contributed to the dust storms (Source 6.9).²³ However, Hurt did not identify capitalism as the prime cause. Instead, he told a story of interrelated factors, balancing natural and man-made elements, like the drought that wiped out crops that would have helped stabilize the soil, with humans’ “technological abuse of the land.”

这就是历史故事的本质。历史学家可以检验相同的证据并发现不同的证据正如他们可以针对同一事件提出不同的问题来阐明不同人物的经历一样。由于沃斯特和赫特等历史学家的工作，我们理解沙尘暴的含义的方式已经改变。此前，沙尘暴大多被定性为一场自然灾害，讲述了勇敢的农民在自然灾害面前坚持不懈，为我们所有人拯救了平原的故事。²⁴其他人则将恶劣的环境视为人类创新和创造力的催化剂。²⁵但沃斯特和赫特帮助改变了这一事件的视角。不是将自然视为作用于勇敢的定居者的主要推动者，而是这些定居者及其文化作用于自然。根据这种观点，造成我们与沙尘暴联系在一起的痛苦的是人类的傲慢，而不是大自然的善变。

Such is the nature of stories in history. Historians can examine the same evidence and find different meanings in it, just as they can ask different questions about the same event to illuminate varied characters’ experiences. Because of the work of historians like Worster and Hurt, how we understand the meaning of the Dust Bowl has changed. Before, the Dust Bowl was mostly characterized as a natural disaster, a story of brave farmers who persisted in the face of natural disaster and saved the Plains for all of us.²⁴ Others saw the hostile environment as a catalyst for human innovation and ingenuity.²⁵ But Worster and Hurt helped change the lens on this event. Rather than casting nature as the primary agent that acted upon the brave settlers, it was those same settlers and their culture who acted upon nature. According to this view, human arrogance, not Mother Nature’s fickleness, caused the suffering we associate with the Dust Bowl.

《沙尘暴》是一个关于自然暴力的故事，还是一个勇敢的定居者在大自然的艰难时期中坚持不懈的故事？这是一个关于人类剥削土地、工业化失控以及不顾可持续性地使用农业机械的故事吗？还是政府政策如何加速剥削、监管或补救的故事？也许沙尘暴讲述了这一事件的特殊性，讲述了它如何成为一场由多种因素在这个特定时间、这个特定地点聚集而成的完美风暴。²⁶

Was the Dust Bowl a story of nature’s violence unleashed, or one of intrepid settlers who persevered through nature’s hard times? Was it a story of humans exploiting the land, industrialization run amok, and the use of farm machines without regard to sustainability? Or was it the story of how government policies can accelerate exploitation, regulate it, or remedy it? Perhaps the Dust Bowl is the story of the particularity of this one event, how it became a perfect storm of many factors that came together in this particular place at this particular time.²⁶

关于沙尘暴的故事有很多，其中有些故事比其他故事更好。有些人完全是错误的，因为他们没有证据支持他们的观点，并且与科学家和历史学家对该事件的了解不一致。其他人则根据相同的证据，在很大程度上同意这一事件的事实，但对于“导致”这些事实的原因却得出完全不同的结论。威廉·克罗农 (William Cronon) 写道，历史学家“将过去的事件配置成因果序列——故事——对这些事件进行排序和简化，赋予它们新的含义。” ²⁷解释性故事需要连贯且统一的情节，要求讲述者对重要内容和应包含的内容做出选择。

There are many stories to be told about the Dust Bowl, some better than others. Some are simply wrong, as they don’t have evidence to support them and are inconsistent with what scientists and historians know about the event. Others alight on the very same evidence and largely agree on the facts of this event, but come to completely different conclusions about what “caused” these facts. Historians, William Cronon wrote, “configure the events of the past into causal sequences—stories—that order and simplify those events to give them new meanings.”²⁷ Stories of explanation require a coherent and unified plot that demands that the teller make choices about what matters and what should be included.

就沙尘暴而言，这个故事讲述了人与自然如何相互作用并密不可分的联系。一方面仅仅关注 20 世纪 30 年代初的干旱，另一方面关注人类对干旱的反应，无法准确地描述平原上的这些不稳定时期及其发生的原因。人类与其赖以生存的地球之间的相互依赖引发了人们的疑问：我们珍视什么，以及面对有限而脆弱的生态系统我们应该如何行事。鉴于我们当前面临的挑战——气候变化、人口增长以及对自然资源的持续挤压——沙尘暴在很大程度上是我们这个时代的一个故事。它提醒我们，我们的行为会影响自然世界，并决定这个世界是否能够维持我们不断增长的人口，还是成为其受害者。

In the case of the Dust Bowl, the story includes how people and nature acted upon one another and are inextricably connected. Focusing solely on the drought of the early 1930s, on the one hand, or on the human response to that drought on the other, gives an inaccurate picture of these precarious times on the Plains and why they occurred. The interdependence between humans and the planet they live on raises questions about what we value and how we should behave in the face of a limited, fragile ecosystem. Given our present challenges—climate change, increasing population, and the ongoing crush for natural resources—the Dust Bowl is very much a story for our times. It reminds us that our actions affect the natural world and can determine whether that world will sustain our growing population or fall victim to it.

为什么要教授有关灰尘碗的知识？

Why Teach About the Dust Bowl?

多个故事并理解它们。故事引人入胜。它们是人类经验中持久的核心部分。我们讲故事不仅是为了分享知识，也是为了教导孩子区分是非、激励孩子并创建社区。引人入胜且难以抗拒的故事渗透到我们的生活中。

Multiple Stories and Making Sense of Them. Stories captivate. They are an enduring and central piece of the human experience. We tell stories not only to share knowledge, but also to teach the difference between right and wrong, inspire our children, and create community. Engaging and irresistible, stories permeate our lives.

它们是历史的核心。我们用故事来理解过去，历史课上很少有不分享故事的一天。但是，我们多久要求学生考虑特定历史事件中包含的多个故事呢？没有任何一个故事能够涵盖历史事件、人物或时代的全部真实情况。人类的经历太过多样和复杂。人们对事件的体验不同，动机可能是隐藏的且多种多样。

And they are central to history. We use stories to make sense of the past, and it is a rare day in history class when a story is not shared. But how often do we ask students to consider the multiple stories embedded in a particular historical event? No single story can capture all that is true about a historic event, person, or era. Human experience is too varied and complex. People experience events differently and motivations can be hidden and multiple.

研究沙尘暴提供了思考多个故事及其运作方式的具体机会。许多学生都知道俄克拉荷马人的故事，但很少有人考虑过那些留下来的人的故事。一个简单的问题，比如“当我们关注俄亥俄州时，我们错过了哪些故事？” 帮助学生认识到历史包括各种观点和经验。

Studying the Dust Bowl offers concrete opportunities to consider multiple stories and how they work. Many students know stories about the Okies, but few have considered the stories of those who stayed behind. A straightforward question like “What stories are we missing when we focus on the Okies?” helps students recognize that history includes a variety of perspectives and experiences.

作为解释和框架的历史。沙尘暴为何发生？解释过去是历史学家工作的核心，但这对我们的学生来说并不一定显而易见。唐纳德·沃斯特 (Donald Worster) 和 R. 道格拉斯·赫特 (R. Douglas Hurt) 等历史学家撰写的故事解释了他们调查的事件的相互关联的原因。过去，沙尘暴经常被描述为一场自然灾害，无论人们在该地区定居和耕作的方式如何，这场自然灾害都会发生。然而，随着历史学家更仔细地研究定居者的放牧和耕作方式、气候记录、政府政策和立法以及共同的信仰和价值观，这个故事被推翻了。学生可以了解到历史解释而不仅仅是描述事件。

History as Explanation and Framing. Why did the Dust Bowl happen? Explaining the past is central to the historian’s work, but this is not necessarily obvious to our students. Historians like Donald Worster and R. Douglas Hurt write stories that explain the interrelated causes of the event they investigated. In the past, the Dust Bowl was often depicted as a natural disaster, one that would have happened regardless of the way people settled and farmed the region. However, as historians have looked more closely at the grazing and farming practices of the settlers, at climatic records, government policies and legislation, and common beliefs and values, that story has been overturned. Students can learn that histories explain, rather than merely describe, events.

他们还可以了解美国历史的子领域以及历史学家如何使用独特的分析框架来研究过去。解释沙尘暴需要仔细观察人与自然世界之间的相互作用，这是唐纳德·沃斯特等环境历史学家关注的焦点。美国历史的子领域（例如环境史、军事史和妇女史）影响历史学家提出的问题和他们讲述的故事。

They can also learn about subfields in American history and how historians use distinctive analytic frames to study the past. Explaining the Dust Bowl requires looking closely at interactions between people and their natural world—the focus of environmental historians like Donald Worster. Subfields in American history (e.g., environmental, military, and women’s history) influence the questions historians ask and the stories they tell.

与科学和英语语言艺术的跨课程联系。探索沙尘暴是整合不同学科并在课程中建立跨课程联系的机会。学生可以阅读英语语言艺术中的《愤怒​​的葡萄》 ，同时研究那些留在历史课上的人的故事。可以强调小说和历史之间的差异，例如历史叙述和主张的证据依据的必要性。历史对解释的关注可以与斯坦贝克利用故事进行社会批判形成鲜明对比。

Cross-Curricular Connections with Science and English Language Arts. Exploring the Dust Bowl is an opportunity to integrate different subjects and make cross-curricular connections in lessons. Students can read The Grapes of Wrath in English language arts, while studying the stories of those who stayed in their history class. Differences between fiction and history can be highlighted, such as the necessity of evidentiary warrants for historical narratives and claims. History’s focus on explanation can be contrasted with Steinbeck’s use of story for social critique.

这个话题对于科学研究来说也已经成熟了。科学家和科学研究结成盟友，共同找出沙尘暴的成因以及预防沙尘暴的方法。风、气候和土壤模式对于解释沙尘暴都很重要。地理变化、农业科学和耕作技术影响了沙尘暴的范围和猛烈程度。可以检查土壤保护方法，并揭示和研究其背后的科学。学生可以更全面地了解活动，同时了解更多不同学科的知识。

This topic is also ripe for scientific study. Scientists and scientific investigation become allies in figuring out the causes of the Dust Bowl and the methods of preventing another. Wind, climate, and soil patterns all matter in explaining the Dust Bowl. Geographical variations, agricultural science, and farming techniques influenced the extent and ferocity of the dust storms. Soil conservation methods can be examined and the science behind them uncovered and investigated. Students can gain a fuller picture of the event while learning more about different academic disciplines.

促进对当代问题的进一步研究。我们正处于一场“绿色革命”之中，这是我们与地球关系意识的转变。为了当选，政治家必须在当地和国际环境问题上表明立场，而学区则必须采取节能措施并寻找绿色环保的方法。许多学生被环境问题和故事所吸引，并渴望了解更多。本主题及其相关材料充分利用了这种兴趣。作为 20 世纪 30 年代的一场严重环境灾难，沙尘暴让学生能够从远处思考人与环境之间的互动，减少热情可以提高分析能力和对复杂性的容忍度。这样的灾难是可以避免的吗？应考虑哪些类型的致病因素？我们可以从这次事件中吸取什么教训？

Prompting Further Research into Contemporary Issues. We are in the midst of a “Green Revolution,” a change in consciousness about our relation to the Earth. To get elected, politicians must take stands on local and international environmental questions, while school districts adapt energy-saving measures and look for ways to go green. Many students are captivated by environmental issues and stories and eager to learn more. This topic and the materials associated with it capitalize on such interest. As a severe environmental disaster of the 1930s, the Dust Bowl allows students to contemplate the interaction between people and the environment from a distance, where reduced passions can lead to heightened analysis and tolerance for complexity. Was such a disaster avoidable? What kinds of causal agents should be considered? What lessons can we learn from this event?

这些材料还可以促使学生调查更多的当代荒漠化问题。美国以外的案例研究，例如巴西的森林砍伐或《联合国防治荒漠化公约》赞助的努力，帮助学生认识到环境问题是国际社会关注的问题，并且环境悲剧不尊重政治界限。

These materials can also prompt students to investigate more contemporary desertification problems. Case studies outside the United States, such as deforestation in Brazil or efforts sponsored by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, help students see that environmental issues are international concerns, and that environmental tragedies do not respect political boundaries.

您将如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

场景 1（1 小时课程）。讲述了什么故事？在“打开教科书”课程中，²⁸使用这些文件来加深学生对沙尘暴的理解，并帮助他们认识到教科书叙述的局限性。

Scenario 1 (1 Hour Lesson). What story is told? In an “Opening Up the Textbook” lesson,²⁸ use these documents to deepen students’ understanding of the Dust Bowl and help them to recognize the limits of the textbook account.

布置作业以准备课程。读完教科书有关沙尘暴的段落后，学生应该思考：教科书讲述了这一事件的什么故事？

Assign homework to prepare for the lesson. After reading the textbook passage that addresses the Dust Bowl, students should consider: What story does the textbook tell of this event?

以这个问题开始课程，并要求学生使用具体细节来说明和详细说明教科书讲述的故事（工具 6.1）。许多教科书都关注俄亥俄人和其他因恶劣条件而离开该地区的人。一些教科书将沙尘暴描述为纯粹由干旱引起的自然灾害。使用适当的文档来“打开”这些故事。例如，学生可以阅读和分析来源 6.2、6.3和6.4 ，以了解更多有关留下来的人的经历。关于原因，学生可以阅读和分析一些涉及人类对该地区影响的文件（选自来源 6.5、6.6、6.7、6.8和6.9）。无论哪种情况，学生都应该以以下问题为指导：这些来源为教科书帐户添加了什么？他们如何支持或质疑教科书的故事？他们讲述了哪些课本上没有讲述的故事？引导全班讨论来探讨这些问题，促使学生用来源证据来支持主张。最后，强调历史证据作为历史调查中持久常数的作用。

Begin the lesson with this question and ask students to use specifics to illustrate and detail the story the textbook tells (Tool 6.1). Many textbooks focus on the Okies and others who left the region because of the terrible conditions. Some textbooks represent the Dust Bowl as a purely natural disaster caused by drought. Use the appropriate documents to “open up” these stories. For example, students can read and analyze Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 to find out more about the experiences of those who stayed. Regarding causes, students can read and analyze some of the documents that address the human impact on the region (select from Sources 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9). In either case, students should be guided by the question(s): What do these sources add to the textbook account? How do they support or contest the textbook story? What story do they tell that is not told by the textbook? Lead a whole-class discussion that explores these questions, prompting students to back up assertions with evidence from the sources. Finally, emphasize the role of evidence in history as the enduring constant in historical investigation.

在课程结束时，让学生评价“历史上有多种故事和观点”这句话。指导他们使用当天课程中的信息和记录来加强他们的书面评估。

To close the lesson, have students evaluate the statement, “There are multiple stories and perspectives in history.” Direct them to use information and accounts from the day’s lesson to strengthen their written evaluations.

场景 2（1-3 小时课程）。沙尘暴的形成原因是什么？利用这些资源让学生参与调查该事件的原因。

Scenario 2 (1–3 Hour Lesson). What caused the Dust Bowl? Use the sources to engage students in investigating the causes of this event.

通过投影照片（来源 6.1 ）开始课程，并要求学生注意照片的日期、内容、看到云向他们滚滚而来时的感受以及他们对沙尘暴的了解。考虑为学生演奏 Woody Guthrie 的歌曲“So Long, It's Been Good to Know Yuh”。（您可以在 YouTube 上找到它，但请务必选择沙尘暴而不是二战版本。）然后介绍本课的中心探究问题：沙尘暴的形成原因是什么？

Start the lesson by projecting the photo (Source 6.1) and asking students to notice its date, content, how they might have felt seeing the cloud roll toward them, and what they know about the Dust Bowl. Consider playing for students Woody Guthrie’s song, “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh.” (You can find it on YouTube, but be sure to select the Dust Bowl rather than the World War II version.) Then introduce the lesson’s central inquiry question: What caused the Dust Bowl?

当学生提出原因时，将他们的答案列在黑板上。在连续三轮中，学生两人一组使用文档集和随附的工作表（工具 6.2）来帮助他们制定准确的原因列表。每轮文件结束后，带领全班同学在讨论中，您重新审视指导性问题，并提示学生用文件中的证据来捍卫他们的答案。使用学生在处理文档时产生的问题来强调历史挖掘如何导致更多问题。

As students generate causes, list their answers on the blackboard. In three successive rounds, pairs of students then work with document sets and accompanying worksheets (Tool 6.2) to help them craft an accurate list of causes. After each round of documents, lead a whole-class discussion where you revisit the guiding question and prompt students to defend their answers with evidence from the documents. Use questions that students have generated from working with the documents to highlight how historical digging can lead to more questions.

在第一轮中，学生使用 Henderson 和 Svobida 帐户（来源6.2、6.3和6.4）。在第二部分中，他们使用了 1936 年大平原干旱地区委员会报告的摘录（来源6.5、6.6和6.7 ）。在第三轮中，学生考虑解释性二级帐户（来源 6.8和6.9）。最后，学生们写下这个问题的答案：“是什么导致了沙尘暴？” 他们的回应应包括证据，尤其是文件中的直接引用和细节，以支持他们的论点。

In the first round, students work with the Henderson and Svobida accounts (Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4). In the second, they use excerpts from the 1936 Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Sources 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). In the third round students consider the interpretive secondary accounts (Sources 6.8 and 6.9). Finally, students write an answer to the question, “What caused the Dust Bowl?” Their responses should include evidence, especially direct quotes and specifics from the documents, to support their argument.

场景 3（2 小时课程）。讲述了谁的故事？使用这些材料整合英语语言艺术和历史课程，并教导学生两者之间的重要区别。（这个场景最好与英语语言艺术同事合作执行。）

Scenario 3 (2 Hour Lesson). Whose story is told? Use the materials to integrate English language arts and history curricula and teach students important differences between the two. (This scenario is best executed in collaboration with an English language arts colleague.)

课前，让学生阅读约翰·斯坦贝克的小说《愤怒的葡萄》，至少读到第 10 章乔德一家离开农场的故事。以这样的问题开始课程：斯坦贝克的故事讲述了谁的故事？然后分发 Svobida 和 Henderson 文件（来源 6.2、6.3和6.4 ） ，这些文件是由 1930 年代留在家园的人们撰写的。询问学生这些故事讲述了谁的故事。这些叙述对您对沙尘暴的了解有何帮助？

Before the lesson, have students read John Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath, up to at least Chapter 10 where the Joads leave their farm. Start the lesson with the question: Whose story is being told in Steinbeck’s tale? Then pass out the Svobida and Henderson documents (Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4), written by people who stayed on their homesteads during the 1930s. Ask students whose story is told by these accounts. What do these accounts add to your understanding of the Dust Bowl?

将来源 6.2、6.3和6.4确定为研究沙尘暴的主要来源。指出历史学家分析主要来源来讲述过去的故事。与他们分享历史学家的叙述之一（来源 6.8或6.9）。请他们指出摘录中的论点和故事。问：这位历史学家用什么来写历史故事？在他们确定必要的证据和来源后，询问斯坦贝克是否需要这些东西来写他的沙尘暴故事。使用这个例子来区分小说和历史。您也可以将斯坦贝克的小说视为主要来源，它提供了对事件和当时背景的洞察，但重申一点，小说和历史并不遵循相同的规则。

Identify Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 as primary sources for studying the Dust Bowl. Make the point that historians analyze primary sources to tell stories about the past. Share with them one of the historian accounts (Source 6.8 or 6.9). Ask them to identify the argument and story in the excerpt. Ask: What did this historian use in order to write a historical story? After they identify evidence and sources as necessary, ask whether Steinbeck needed these things to write his story of the Dust Bowl. Use this example to distinguish between fiction and history. You may also consider Steinbeck’s novel as a primary source that offers insight into the events and the context of the time, but reiterate the point that fiction and history do not follow the same rules.

通过要求学生写 1-3 段同意或不同意以下陈述来评估他们：“使用虚构和非虚构的资料可以帮助我们理解过去。” 学生应该表明立场，然后使用至少两个具体的支持例子来解释它。

Assess students by asking them to write 1–3 paragraphs agreeing or disagreeing with the following statement: “Using both fictional and non-fictional sources can help us understand the past.” Students should take a stance and then explain it using at least two specific supporting examples.

场景 4（2 小时课程）。独立研究的跳板：使用这些材料推动学生利用引导性研究来阐述故事（参见工具 6.3）。

Scenario 4 (2 Hour Lesson). Springboard to independent research: Use these materials to propel students toward using guided research to elaborate a story (see Tool 6.3).

使用前面的场景之一来介绍多个故事的想法。当学生认识到至少两个可供选择的故事后，让他们选择一个来了解更多。首先，让学生写一段话，讲述他们所知道的故事，并确定他们想了解更多的内容。然后引导他们访问资源和基于 Web 的档案，在那里他们可以了解有关这些主题的更多信息（要开始使用，请参阅“建议的资源”部分）。

Use one of the previous scenarios to introduce the idea of multiple stories. After students recognize at least two alternative stories, have them choose one to learn more about. First, have students write a paragraph telling the story as they know it and identifying what they would like to learn more about. Then direct them to resources and Web-based archives where they can learn more about these topics (in order to get started, see the Suggested Resources section).

要求学生找到至少三个来源来补充他们正在调查的故事。学生应该分析每个来源并确定其产生的时间、地点和原因；是二手来源还是一手来源；以及它如何支持、质疑或扩展他们阅读过的其他来源。²⁹学生应记录他们在哪里找到每个来源以及分析中出现的任何问题。最后，让他们使用调查过程中发现的信息、引述和数据分几个段落重述这个故事，并引用具体支持证据的来源。

Ask students to find at least three sources that add to the story they are investigating. Students should analyze each source and identify when, where, and why it was produced; whether it is a secondary or primary source; and how it supports, contests, or extends other sources they have read.²⁹ Students should record where they found each source and any questions that arise from their analyses. Finally, have them retell the story in several paragraphs using information, quotes, and data uncovered during their investigation and citing the sources for that specific supporting evidence.

来源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源：JH Ward，沙尘暴。科罗拉多州。照片。1935 年。来自国会图书馆，美国从大萧条到第二次世界大战：来自 FSA-OWI 的照片，1935-1945 年，http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall： @field(NUMBER+@band(fsa+8b26995)

Source: J. H. Ward, Dust storm. Colorado. Photograph. 1935. From Library of Congress, America from the Great Depression to World War II: Photographs from the FSA-OWI, 1935–1945, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall:@field(NUMBER+@band(fsa+8b26995)

 

 

资料来源6.2：HENDERSON信件（修改版）

SOURCE 6.2: HENDERSON LETTER (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自卡罗琳·亨德森 (Caroline Henderson) 于 1935 年 7 月 26 日从俄克拉荷马州狭长地带致美国农业部长亨利·A·华莱士 (Henry A. Wallace) 的信。阿尔文·O·特纳 (Alvin O. Turner)（主编），《尘暴来信》（诺曼：俄克拉荷马大学出版社，2001 年），140–142；146–147。

Source: Excerpts from Caroline Henderson’s letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace, sent July 26, 1935, from the Oklahoma Panhandle. In Alvin O. Turner (Ed.), Letters from the Dust Bowl (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 140–142; 146–147.

资料来源6.3：S VOBIDA账户（修改后）

SOURCE 6.3: SVOBIDA ACCOUNT (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自劳伦斯·斯沃比达 (Lawrence Svobida)，《种植沙尘暴：来自堪萨斯州的第一手资料》，首次出版于 1940 年（劳伦斯：堪萨斯大学出版社，1986 年），59。

Source: Excerpt from Lawrence Svobida, Farming the Dust Bowl: A First-Hand Account from Kansas, first published in 1940 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986), 59.

资料来源6.4：《S VOBIDA ON Nature 》（修改版）

SOURCE 6.4: SVOBIDA ON NATURE (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自劳伦斯·斯沃比达 (Lawrence Svobida)，《种植沙尘暴：来自堪萨斯州的第一手资料》，首次出版于 1940 年（劳伦斯：堪萨斯大学出版社，1986 年），36。

Source: Excerpt from Lawrence Svobida, Farming the Dust Bowl: A First-Hand Account from Kansas, first published in 1940 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986), 36.

资料来源6.5：地图

SOURCE 6.5: MAP

资料来源：大平原干旱地区委员会的报告，于 1936 年 8 月 27 日发送给罗斯福总统，由农业部和土壤保护局等八个联邦机构的领导人签署。Morris Cooke 等人，《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》（纽约海德公园：富兰克林·D·罗斯福图书馆，1936 年）。网址：http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

Source: Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee, sent to President Roosevelt on August 27, 1936, signed by leaders of eight Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service. Morris Cooke et al., Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 1936). Available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

 

 

资料来源：大平原干旱地区委员会的报告，于 1936 年 8 月 27 日发送给罗斯福总统，由农业部和土壤保护局等八个联邦机构的领导人签署。Morris Cooke 等人，《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》（纽约海德公园：富兰克林·D·罗斯福图书馆，1936 年）。网址：http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

Source: Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee, sent to President Roosevelt on August 27, 1936, signed by leaders of eight Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service. Morris Cooke et al., Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 1936). Available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

 

 

资料来源6.7：委员会报告（修改版）

SOURCE 6.7: COMMITTEE REPORT (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自大平原干旱地区委员会报告，于 1936 年 8 月 27 日发送给罗斯福总统，由农业部和土壤保护局等八个联邦机构的领导人签署（斜体字已添加）。Morris Cooke 等人，《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》（纽约海德公园：富兰克林·D·罗斯福图书馆，1936 年）。网址：http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

Source: Excerpts from Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee, sent to President Roosevelt on August 27, 1936, signed by leaders of eight Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service (italics added). Morris Cooke et al., Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 1936). Available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

资料来源6.8：历史学家的解释A （修改版）

SOURCE 6.8: HISTORIAN EXPLANATION A (MODIFIED)

资料来源：Donald Worster (1979)，沙尘暴：20 世纪 30 年代的南部平原。纽约：牛津大学出版社，4-5（添加斜体）。

Source: Donald Worster (1979), Dust Bowl: The Southern Plain in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press, 4–5 (italics added).

资料来源6.9：历史解释B（修改版）

SOURCE 6.9: HISTORIAN EXPLANATION B (MODIFIED)

资料来源：R. Douglas Hurt (1981)，《沙尘暴：农业和社会历史》（芝加哥：Nelson-Hall），15, 30（添加斜体）。

Source: R. Douglas Hurt (1981), The Dust Bowl: An Agricultural and Social History (Chicago: Nelson-Hall), 15, 30 (italics added).

工具6.1：开放教科书_ _ _

TOOL 6.1: OPENING UP THE TEXTBOOK

---

关于沙尘暴有什么故事？

What story is told about the Dust Bowl?

1. 教科书的故事与您读过的其他来源有何相似之处和不同之处？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. How is the textbook’s story similar to and different from one of the other sources you read?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 在一个段落中，使用您今天读到的证据来评估以下陈述：“历史上有多种故事和观点。”
4. In a paragraph, evaluate the following statement using evidence from what you have read today: “There are multiple stories and perspectives in history.”

工具6.2：是什么导致了灰尘碗？_

TOOL 6.2: WHAT CAUSED THE DUST BOWL?

---

假设：

Hypothesis:

工具6.3：研究的跳板

TOOL 6.3: SPRINGBOARD TO RESEARCH

---

1. 列出您读过的有关沙尘暴的不同故事。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. List different stories about the Dust Bowl that you have read.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. A。选择一个您想更多了解的故事并将其列在这里。
   
   
   
   b. 写一篇短文来概括这个故事。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   C。写下您对这个故事的 2-3 个问题。（想想你还想知道什么以及你不明白什么。）
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. a. Pick one story you would like to know more about and list it here.
   
   
   
   b. Write a short paragraph summarizing this story.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   c. Write 2–3 questions that you have about this story. (Think about what else you want to know and what you don’t understand.)
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 查找三个来源（文档、照片、视频）来帮助您更多地了解这个故事。为每一项填写下表。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Find three sources (documents, photos, video) that help you learn more about the story. Fill out the following chart for each.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 用 1-3 段重述故事。
   1. 包括您在调查中发现的信息、引述和数据。
   2. 引用该信息/数据/引用的来源。在句子末尾的括号中包含来源的作者和日期，使其看起来像这样：（作者，日期）。
8. Retell the story in 1–3 paragraphs.
   1. Include information, quotes, and data that you found in your investigations.
   2. Cite your sources for that information/data/quotes. Include the author and date of the source in parentheses at the end of the sentence so that it looks like this: (author, date).

建议资源

Suggested Resources

http://memory.loc.gov/fsowhome.html

http://memory.loc.gov/fsowhome.html

美国从大萧条到第二次世界大战：来自 FSA-OWI 的照片，1935 年至 1945 年是来自农场安全管理局战争信息办公室的大量照片集。该馆藏是美国国会图书馆美国记忆网站的一部分，可以按主题、作者和地点进行搜索。

America from the Great Depression to World War II: Photographs from the FSA-OWI, 1935–1945 is an extensive collection of photos from the Farm Security Administration—Office of War Information. The collection is part of the Library of Congress’s American Memory site and can be searched by subject, creator, and location.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/hult_sod.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/hult_sod.html

使用此网站帮助学生了解草皮房子里的生活与他们自己的生活有何不同。该资源是 Fred Hulstrand：《图片中的历史》收藏的一部分，记录了北部平原的定居情况，是对草皮房屋的精彩介绍，包括照片和描述。

Use this site to help students understand how life in a sod house differs from their own. Part of the Fred Hulstrand: History in Pictures collection that documents the settling of the northern Plains, this resource is a fine introduction to sod houses and includes photographs and descriptions.

http://www.kansashistory.us/dustbowl.html

http://www.kansashistory.us/dustbowl.html

沙尘暴历史包括精心挑选的主要和次要来源的集合，包括照片、数据图表和歌曲。这些可用于了解背景知识或进一步调查。

Dust Bowl History includes a well-chosen collection of primary and secondary sources, including photographs, data charts, and songs. These can be used for background knowledge or for further investigation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/dustbowl-introduction/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/dustbowl-introduction/

该网站由 PBS 系列“美国经验”创建，包括一段有关沙尘暴的短视频以及有用的时间表、课程计划以及论文和采访（包括唐纳德·沃斯特的一篇）。

Created by the PBS series American Experience, this site includes a short video about the Dust Bowl and a helpful timeline, lesson plan, and essays and interviews (including one with Donald Worster).

http://www.williamcronon.net/researching/index.htm

http://www.williamcronon.net/researching/index.htm

由历史学家威廉·克罗农 (William Cronon) 和他的学生编写和制作的基于网络的历史研究入门读物。包括阅读对环境史特别重要的资料（包括景观）的方法。另请参阅 Cronon 的主页，了解有关环境历史的更多资源。

A web-based primer on historical research compiled and produced by historian William Cronon and his students. Includes ways to read sources particularly important for doing environmental history, including landscapes. Also see Cronon’s home page for more resources regarding environmental history.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe20s/machines_01.htm

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe20s/machines_01.htm

该网站对不懂农业的人很有帮助，它简要介绍了不同的农业机械以及它们在 20 世纪 20 年代内布拉斯加州如何随着时间的推移而发生的变化。解释很容易理解，并附有照片和主要叙述。

Helpful for the farming-ignorant, this site includes brief explanations of different farm machines and how they changed over time in 1920s Nebraska. Explanations are easy to follow and accompanied by photographs and primary accounts.

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/units/eight/landscape/08_landscape7.pdf

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/units/eight/landscape/08_landscape7.pdf

本教学单元探讨 20 世纪上半叶的环境变化问题。它由圣地亚哥州立大学和国家学校历史中心的一个项目“我们所有人的世界历史”网站制作，提供材料和背景知识，为这些变化带来国际视角，并包括解决人口增长、移民，以及拖拉机和化石燃料的日益使用。

This teaching unit explores issues of environmental change in the first half of the 20th century. Produced by the World History for Us All website, a project of San Diego State University and the National Center for History in the Schools, it provides materials and background knowledge for bringing an international perspective to these changes, and includes sources that address population growth, migration, and the growing use of tractors and fossil fuel.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dust-bowl-cause.htm&url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/002-193.html

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dust-bowl-cause.htm&url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/002-193.html

本文写于 1986 年，提供了关于荒漠化的当代和国际视角。³⁰它包括关于世界各地地被退化和消失的定义、历史概述和数据。

This article, written in 1986, offers a contemporary and international lens on desertification.³⁰ It includes definitions, a historical overview, and data on the degradation and disappearance of ground cover for regions around the world.

http://newdeal.feri.org/

http://newdeal.feri.org/

由富兰克林和埃莉诺·罗斯福研究所赞助的新政网络提供了大量历史资料和其他教学资源，以帮助充实有关大萧条和新政的课程。在这里您可以找到 1936 年大平原干旱地区委员会报告的更完整版本。

The New Deal Network, sponsored by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, offers a good collection of historical sources and other teaching resources to help flesh out lessons on the Great Depression and New Deal. Here you can find a more complete version of the 1936 Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee.